Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 1st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman supporting my Bill and then moving such an amendment in Committee—I will certainly consider it then, if that is what he is willing to do.

The Labour Government also introduced national apprenticeship week, which aimed to give expanded chances and skills a focus for recognition and celebration, and set up the National Apprenticeship Service to help to drive the project all year round. It was launched as a vehicle to promote the real and valuable opportunities we all believe apprenticeships can offer.

The national apprenticeship week has become a central part of the employment and skills calendar. It is a week in which excellence and aspiration in learning, and acquiring skills and trades in areas as diverse as engineering, construction, the hospitality industry, joinery, accountancy and health and social care, are showcased and celebrated.

We can have our political knockabouts in this place, and I have concerns that this Government have slipped back on some of the progress, particularly for young people, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise that they have largely built on the record of apprenticeships and skills training that they inherited from the previous Labour Government. I hope that they, like me, will recognise that more can still be done. I was overjoyed that the Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships said during last week’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions that apprentices in public procurement do have a role. He said:

“Of course we do use public procurement to increase the number of apprenticeships, not least in Crossrail, which is the largest public procurement and construction project in Europe at the moment. It is true that we had to take action to remove some low-quality provision in the 16 to 19 space when we introduced rules to ensure that every apprenticeship was a job, which it had not previously been…We also have a programme in hand to increase the numbers. Participation in apprenticeships is at the highest level ever, which I would have thought all parties would be able to support.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 421.]

Those were the words of the Minister for Skills and Enterprise. So let us see that clear statement of intent through to its logical end by supporting my Bill, as it is very much in line with that statement; let us use public procurement to drive up the quality of apprenticeship opportunities in this country.

We need an ambitious policy on apprentices—this is our challenge—and my Bill goes a small way to helping to achieve that. The Deputy Speaker will not be surprised to learn that I agree with my Front-Bench team that we need a universal gold standard for apprenticeships. That would mean that there would be the same standards and opportunities for young people who do not go to university as for those who do—we must remember that they account for about 68% of the young people in my constituency.

The policy was announced at this year’s Labour party conference by the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), and I am extremely pleased to see him here today supporting the Bill. Although the policy is not part of my Bill, it is surely right that minimum standards are introduced, in stages, leading to a system whereby all apprenticeships would last for a minimum of two years—preferably, three years—would be level 3 qualifications or above and would have a focus on new entrants to the labour market. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has also said that if a company wants a major Government contract, it

“must provide apprenticeships for the next generation.”

Indeed, at this year’s Labour party conference the skills taskforce published the first of three final reports, “A revolution in apprenticeships”, which looked specifically at how to increase the quality and quantity of apprenticeships, through new minimum standards and a something-for-something deal with employers. That is because a good apprenticeship can change lives just as much as a degree can.

There are already good examples of apprenticeships in my constituency, and I have mentioned the Tameside 50:50 initiative. Young people in areas such as Tameside are among those with the fewest opportunities to access the jobs market, yet it was Labour-controlled Tameside metropolitan borough council, working with the previous Labour Government, that ensured that contractors for schemes such as Building Schools for the Future took on apprentices as part of the Tameside Works First initiative. I commend to all hon. Members the fantastic new facilities at Denton community college. I should perhaps declare an interest, as my wife is chair of governors of that fantastic new school, which achieved 96% A to C grades at GCSE this year. Those are the best ever results, achieved in superb state-of-the-art facilities. The contractor that built that school, Carillion, took on no fewer than 13 apprentices as part of the construction project, because that was required by Tameside’s council under the Building Schools for the Future initiative. That was good public procurement practice levering in apprenticeships and skills training, and leaving a lasting legacy, not only in employment opportunities for those young apprentices, but in the form of a superb new school driving up education standards in my community for the future.

Tameside council restated its commitment to apprenticeships at the Tameside skills summit on 28 March. It set the challenge to its partners in Tameside to achieve 100% participation by 16 to 24-year-olds in education, training or a job with training by 2020.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I suppose the hon. Gentleman also accepts that it is sometimes difficult for a small company, consisting of fewer than 10 people, to have a formal apprenticeship scheme. In such cases, we might be talking about giving a job rather than having a formal apprenticeship scheme.

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is absolutely right. The Bill is not prescriptive and it relates to public procurement contracts in excess of £1 million, so the local public body “may” seek a commitment to skills training or apprenticeships as part of a contract. That can be carried out through a variety of means—

[Bob Stewart]

For a young person—

[Andrew Gwynne]

For a young person. That can be carried out in a variety of ways, one of which the hon. Gentleman outlined. Of course, however, it would be incumbent on that company or group of companies to explain what it is doing as part of the bid process. It would then be down to the public body to determine whether that meets its aims and ambitions for its local economy, but he is right in what he says.

Through the Tameside apprenticeships scheme, the local council has committed to helping small companies such as the ones the hon. Gentleman mentioned to take on apprentices, in response to feedback received about the difficulties they may experience. Those difficulties relate particularly to the construction sector, and some other sectors, where an employer cannot guarantee that contracts will last for the full 12 months or more of the apprenticeship. Tameside apprenticeships, a partnership between Tameside council, Tameside college, New Charter housing trust and the Tameside learning provider network has set a target to achieve 100 additional apprenticeships in the borough in the next 12 months.

If the employer has to withdraw from the agreement, the council has undertaken to pay the apprentices’ wages for a month while a replacement employer is found. As I have already said, the 50:50 scheme set up by Tameside council also provides up to 50 apprenticeship grants of £1,000 each to employers who take on 16, 17 or 18-year-old Tameside residents. It has been a huge success.

Good apprenticeship opportunities are also offered by the local housing association, New Charter housing trust. During apprentice week this year, it showed its continued support for apprentices with a pledge to take on at least 20 people from April, doubling the number of apprentices from the previous year. The trust has apprentices in a range of roles across the company including in administration, domestic gas engineering, painting and decorating and plastering—all good apprenticeships that can offer a ladder to a future career. New Charter has also taken on a role as lead partner in a new housing apprenticeship scheme for Greater Manchester called “Foundations in Housing”, working with other housing associations across the county.

In the Stockport part of my constituency, there is the 100 apprenticeships in 100 days initiative. Stockport council, which, incidentally, is Liberal Democrat controlled—I do not often have good words to say about the Liberal Democrats but today I will break the habit of a lifetime, even though it is noticeable that no Liberal Democrats have turned up to support the Bill—has worked with local employers to get them to take on more apprentices. Within the 100 days, the scheme’s target of 100 apprentices was soon reached and the campaign will now run until mid-November. It has been such a success that it has secured about 152 extra apprentices so far.

I also want to consider some of the good work being done by central Government. We know that since July 2011, the Department of Work and Pensions has been operating its apprenticeships and skills requirement contract schedule, which requires:

“The Contractor shall and shall procure that its Sub-contractors shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that 5% of their employees are on a formal apprenticeship programme.”

We can see from that initiative how the same formula could be applied directly elsewhere and in other Government Departments beside the DWP. Many more apprenticeship places could be created if the Government really wanted to expand apprenticeships in the public sector and through public procurement. I believe that my Bill can help the Government to facilitate that.

What better spur to action can there be for the two thirds of businesses that still do not offer apprenticeships than the knowledge that they are crucial to the Government and to working with the Government? Government, whether local or national, realises that it must be the responsibility of public procurement to do all it can to give young people a chance to get experience as an apprentice. Having an hands-off approach is simply not good enough and I commend the Government for recognising that in at least one of their Departments.

As I said in my opening remarks, all Members of this House celebrate the value of apprenticeships in providing opportunities and developing the skills of our work force and our future work force. We need to have more quality apprenticeship opportunities, however, particularly for young people at a time when nearly 1 million young people are out of work. I believe that my Bill would be useful and helpful to the Government in promoting that. It is common sense that the Government and public authorities are uniquely placed to use the leverage of the money that they already spend on procurement of public services to promote skills training and to provide new apprenticeship opportunities. That should be part of the procurement process.

The Bill is a relatively simple idea. Every supplier winning public contracts worth more than £1 million may be required to offer apprenticeship opportunities if that is the desire of the relevant public body. The Bill is not prescriptive and it does not compel, but it does empower. It would mean that companies applying for certain public procurement projects could be asked to include and offer quality apprenticeships as part of their bid if the public body wants that. My Bill would ensure that all apprenticeships offered as part of a public procurement contract would have to be advertised to all local workers, ensuring that those looking for a job would have a chance to apply and to be successful.

My Bill focuses on advanced and higher level apprenticeships, at levels 3 and 4, to ensure that we have apprenticeships that can rival university degrees. We should consider that point, given that in my constituency 68% of young people—and no doubt a similar proportion in the constituencies of other right hon. and hon. Members—or 50% of young people across the country do not have the opportunity to obtain a higher education qualification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I absolutely agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The London Legacy Development Corporation is aware of the transient nature of the work force in sectors such as construction and has asked its contractors to monitor the length of their workers’ residency. When we were building in preparation for the Olympic games, we were keen to make sure that local people, who were being severely disadvantaged by the construction process, were able to take advantage of the opportunities that came their way.

We set up lots of monitoring schemes to find out whether the people getting the jobs and apprenticeships came from the area. Unsurprisingly, people moved into the area to take up the jobs and apprenticeships and then moved out, taking with them their skills and spending power. That, obviously, is not great; we wanted to transform the local area and make sure that local people had the advantages.

[Bob Stewart]

Has the hon. Lady any idea of how many people who were apprentices for the Olympic build successfully moved into permanent employment as a consequence of that training? Do we have that figure?

[Lyn Brown]

I am not sure whether the figure is available, but I will check that out and pass a note to the hon. Gentleman as it would interest me too. However, we did discover that apprentices based in Salford, Gateshead and Newcastle came with their firms to the Olympic park to complete their apprenticeships. Although we got additional apprenticeships, the Olympics provided opportunities for companies based elsewhere in the UK to bring their work forces down and keep them employed while we waited for the worst of the recession in building to move on or for additional work to be found.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I remember, 10 years ago, like many Members, sitting on the Government Benches listening to the whole of the Iraq debate and agonising about how I should vote. I remember my heart telling me that I should support my leader—I particularly wanted to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), my good friend—and my head telling me throughout that debate, “No, there’s something wrong here,” and I voted no. I voted no, understanding that many members of my own party in Vauxhall probably supported the war, although most did not. Many people in my constituency supported the war, although most did not. There was an even split at that time.

On this occasion, 10 years on, I am very clear and I am not agonising. I oppose military action in this case. Whatever the Attorney-General says and despite all the legal paraphernalia that we have been bombarded with, for the general public this is almost like agonising on the head of a pin. Legal arguments will not wash with the public or with me when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. It would be wrong and, importantly, counter-productive to take military action against Syria. I am not a pacifist. I was one of the first people, together with a number of my colleagues but long before my Front-Bench team did so, to argue strongly for intervention in Bosnia. I also supported the Falklands war, so I am not a pacifist.

The question is how bombing, no matter how strategic, how precise and how short, will make things if not better for the Syrian people, at least not worse. I believe that it will not do so and I have yet to be persuaded by anyone who has spoken in this debate that it would make things better for the Syrian people. I found the speech by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) very commanding indeed. I do not support Assad or the regime. As many Members have said, it has been an appalling regime for many years. It is worth remembering that we provided many of the regime’s arms. I wonder who provided the components that make up the chemical weapons. I would not be a bit surprised if some came from this country and other countries in the west—[Interruption]—and of course from Russia, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) says.

It has not been proven absolutely that the chemical weapons were used by Assad. It probably was Assad—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Hoey]

No.

We have had information before that poison gas had been used and Carla Del Ponte, who was the UN commissioner in Syria, pointed out that it was the rebels who had used it. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me when he winds up the debate, if, despite what everyone thinks, the weapons inspectors find that it was the rebels or some rogue general who used the chemical weapons last week, the Prime Minister will be saying the things that he did about the use of chemical weapons? The doctrine of prevention, which I had hoped—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Newmark]

That is a very good question, and I suspect that I know my hon. Friend’s direction of travel in asking it. There is no evidence, at least that I am aware of, that the Russians or the Iranians helped Syria to develop that arsenal, although I would not be surprised if they had done so.

Peter Hitchens wrote recently, in support of the Assad regime, that the Syrian Government were not lying and that it made “more sense” for the opposition to poison and kill more than 1,000 of their own people. If that is the case, however absurd, why, if they had nothing to hide, did the Syrian Government and their chief sponsor on the Security Council, Russia, block the United Nations chemical weapons inspectors from going to the site when they were only 15 minutes away? Instead, they continued to bombard the area and to degrade the evidence as much as possible. I find it astounding how this kind of double-think has become common currency among many of those who oppose the war. That includes some Opposition Members who have been retweeting articles along those lines from the Voice of Russia. Frankly, I would rather believe our Government and our intelligence agencies than Russia and President Assad.

That chemical weapons have been used in Syria is in no doubt. The question is whether the regime itself delivered them. My understanding is that the intelligence drawn from eye-witness statements, video footage and electronic intercepts is extremely compelling. This raises another question: do we have any confidence in our intelligence agencies at all? My answer is yes. Just because Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell were economical with the truth about the intelligence that they used to get us into Iraq—through what has become known as the “dodgy dossier”—that should not taint our view of the current evidence that the intelligence services have been collecting on this matter. That evidence puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of Bashar al-Assad and his brother, Maher.

[Bob Stewart]

I was an officer trained in nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, and one of the things that I learned on my course was that only a professional army could manage and use chemical weapons. There is no doubt in my mind that the rebels would not have the capacity or the ability to use such weapons. I am sure that when the report comes back from the United Nations inspectors, it will not be able to identify who threw them or used them but it will perhaps be able to say that they were used. In my mind, however, there is no doubt that only a professional army—and not the rebels—could use chemical weapons.

[Mr Newmark]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his thoughtful intervention.

Those opposing military action say that, notwithstanding the increasing evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, we should let the UN inspectors do their work first. To them I say this: of course, but we should remember that the inspectors’ remit is not to apportion blame for this atrocity; it is merely to confirm that chemical weapons were in fact used. Does any Member in the House doubt that such weapons were used? Of course not. Those opposing military action say that we need a UN resolution to back any action, but we will never get such a resolution while Russia, the Assad regime’s key supporter, remains a member of the Security Council. In fact, Russia has blocked every single move to condemn the Assad regime since this conflict began.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I completely endorse that. In Kosovo in 1999 there were three broadly supported UN resolutions. Although not enough to get over the UN hurdle that we seek to overcome, they did provide the assistance and support that such a course would entail. We have to address what the legal basis is for any proposed action by the British or other international troops.

[Bob Stewart]

I will make one point. I very carefully studied United Nations Security Council resolutions in 1992 as an authority for action. It is only the Security Council of the UN, as it is currently constituted, that will give authority for international action under article 6 or article 7.

[Guy Opperman]

With no disrespect to my hon. Friend—my honourable and respected military friend—I disagree. Subsequent to 1991, the responsibility to protect protocols were introduced, particularly post-1999 in Kosovo. I accept that we are not in a UN article 51 charter case. We are not acting in self-defence. We are not, as a nation, in any way threatened. However, the process of R2P does allow NATO to act when certain preconditions, as set out in the Attorney-General’s guidance, are maintained.

On this particular point, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and anyone who is concerned about this issue to go through the Attorney-General’s guidance, which has been published today. An objective has to be identified. In this case, it would be the objective of attempting to stop the specific spread and repeated use of chemical weapons. There could be little doubt that such an outrage constituted a humanitarian disaster, and we would need to be satisfied that every means, short of force, had been taken to resolve this specific situation in Syria. To that end, the revision of the motion and the encouragement of the UN makes specific the assistance on this particular problem that a military officer, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, would have previously had in those circumstances. We would then have to consider that the proposed action was the only means to averting further and immediate human catastrophe. As the Attorney-General made clear, the force proposed would need to be both proportionate and specifically directed to stop the possible future use of chemical weapons.

I have already mentioned the example of Kosovo in 1999, but historians and lawyers could set out similar actions. Action was taken in Liberia in 1990 and elsewhere in the past 20 years. Surely the point is this: R2P was brought in to address the question of whether, as a last resort, humanitarian intervention is authorised under international law. We are clearly not yet in that situation, but the power to act and a lawful course are clearly set out.

Today is not about military action or involvement in another country’s civil war; all agree that the issue is not about boots on the ground. It is about a war crime—the massive use of chemical weapons—and several countries in the world attempting to prevent the extended and further use of such weapons. Before any further specific action is taken, the House will have a second debate and will be provided, I hope, with an understanding of our objectives and strategy, the upsides of action or inaction, and an exit policy. I welcome and support the revised motion on those grounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The choice between head in the sand and boots on the ground has always, to my mind, been a false one. In recent days we have heard much about the limits to our influence on events in Syria, but we must not allow ourselves to believe that we can do nothing for the Syrian people. I recently visited a refugee camp near the Syrian border in the Kurdish region of Iraq. It was a harrowing reminder of the brutality of this war and its complexity.

In demographic terms Syria is like a photographic negative of Iraq. Both have large minority populations of Christians and Kurds, but in Syria it is the Sunnis who form the historically oppressed majority. In Iraq, we have seen what happens when a ruling minority is violently deposed. Today, large swathes of Sunni Iraq have all the characteristics of a failed state. My fear is that the envisioned post-Assad Syria would be equally unsustainable. A Sunni-dominated Syria would show no mercy to the defeated Alawites, and would therefore be completely unacceptable to the minorities, whether Alawite, Christian or Kurd, who would undoubtedly rebel with the support of regional powers.

The ever-shifting maze of internal politics and external agendas, and the sheer complexity of the situation, demand that we should be modest about what we hope to achieve. My constituents are deeply concerned about the prospect of another open-ended war in the middle east, and I will not vote for any action that would entangle us in regime change. There can be no more nation-building. We simply do not have the capability to do that; indeed, the most powerful country in the world does not have that capability.

[Bob Stewart]

Whatever we do, we must be quite precise about it. People talk about an exit strategy, but I have never seen an exit strategy in any other military conflict. I went into Bosnia with no mission whatever, but with just one idea: to save people’s lives. That is what we should be doing: saving the lives of people in Syria if we can.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

That is right. Any intervention by Britain must have a clear objective and defined limits, and our objective must be to protect civilians, as my hon. Friend has just said.

G8

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Members of the House who put pressure on the representatives of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We should also pay tribute to those representatives. They came willingly to London, they sat round the Cabinet table and they committed to a series of steps that some but not all of them had committed to before. We should now stand up for them and say that other jurisdictions that do not have this sort of transparency now need to do what they have done. It is important that we pay tribute to the work they have done. As for the other part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am not sighted of it so I shall have to have a look at it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As we went into Afghanistan as a direct result of a threat to our own country and our own people, will my right hon. Friend honour all those soldiers, sailors and airmen who have died or been hurt in Afghanistan by ensuring that those who negotiate with the Taliban somehow get an agreement from them that they will never make a threat against our country or encourage others to do so? Thus can we honour those people who have given their lives in support of our country.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak as he does; he speaks with great authority on this matter. If we cast our minds back to 2001, we will remember that one of the reasons we went into Afghanistan was that the then Taliban regime refused to give up or condemn al-Qaeda. The whole point of the action was to get al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and to stop them launching attacks from there on our soil. We should pay tribute to the more than 400 service personnel who have given their lives and to the many more who have been wounded. We should pay tribute to the incredible work they have done. They have helped bring us to a point at which Afghanistan is now taking responsibility for its own security through the highly capable Afghan national security forces. The Taliban have said in their statement that they do not want to see Afghanistan being used as a base for attacks on other countries.

EU Council and Woolwich

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly, parts of the Syrian opposition do include extremists and, regrettably, armed extremists. The point I was making is that the Syrian National Coalition, the official opposition, is a body that we can work with and is a legitimate spokesperson organisation for the Syrian people. Of course we have discussed this issue not just with the Turkish Government but with the Jordanians, the Emiratis, the Qataris, the Saudis and others. We want to do everything we can to channel support to those parts of the Syrian opposition that stand for democracy, freedom, human rights and all the things in which we believe in this House. We are better able to do that if we are engaged—if we are helping to organise these groups. That is what we are now involved in. We are not, as I said, making a separate decision about arming them, but that work is good work and will help to ensure that the Syrian opposition is moderate.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Terrorists hide among, come from and are sustained by groups of people around them. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the taskforce for tackling extremism puts quite a lot of effort into trying to isolate these misguided people away from those who allow them to operate and who sustain them?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the way he puts it. It is not enough to target and go after violent extremists after they have become violent. We have to drain the swamp which they inhabit. That means looking at the process of radicalisation on our campuses. It means looking at Islamic centres that have been taken over by extremists and gone wrong. It means looking at those mosques that are struggling to throw out the extremists and helping them in the work that they are doing. It means going through all the elements of the conveyor belt to radicalisation and ensuring that we deal with them. That is what is important. That is the work that needs to be done.

Debate on the Address

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is relevant to those who try to fill the pot when a humanitarian crisis occurs and support from Governments and taxpayers is essential. The answer is that we do it best by publishing whether people have stood by their promises. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant, and we need to be transparent and open so that we can show people whether their Governments stand by the commitments they have made.

Thirdly, we need much greater leadership by the United States. Nothing will happen to address this issue without a far greater commitment from the US. There are signs that the new Secretary of State is addressing this point, but the US’s allies need to accept that progress will be made only if we are able to persuade the US to provide the leadership that only it can. That is not just about the US, but the United Nations. The fact that the permanent five do not agree on Syria is not a barrier to the UN continuing to strive in every way and stretching every sinew to try to make progress in this desperate situation, which will pollute a far wider area than just Syria if it continues to develop as it is.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On my right hon. Friend’s point about evidence against potential war criminals, I have been involved in the chasing of war criminals and given evidence in five trials. One of the ways in which we can help is to educate journalists in how they can make their films and reports so that the evidence can be used later by the International Criminal Court. That is a positive move that the Government could make to help the future of justice.

[Mr Mitchell]

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. He has direct experience of this issue, and we need to tackle the culture of impunity that grows up in such situations. It is important to use every possible mechanism —he eloquently described one such mechanism—and I hope that he will ensure that Foreign Office Ministers can gather from his experience the extent of what can be done to tackle that culture.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Many hon. Members have paid tribute to Margaret Thatcher’s care for the armed forces. Thirty years ago, after my rifle company, A Company the Cheshires, was blown to bits, she flew into Northern Ireland and came with me to Musgrave Park military hospital. Thirty-five of my men had been wounded and six had been killed. She went around the beds and stopped, talked, wept, caressed, sat with and inspired those men. I was incredibly impressed.

A year later, again in Northern Ireland, Margaret Thatcher visited my company at Aughnacloy in south Tyrone. She flew in with the Special Air Service and I briefed her. I asked her, “Prime Minister, do you have any questions?” She said, “Make sure, Bob, that I meet all the soldiers who were wounded a year ago.” She did. My goodness, that lady—that Iron Lady—had the heart of a lion and that lion’s heart was made of gold.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

What I see is an avoidance of the reality of what happened after 2010, which was that the list of appointments contained the picks of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and Labour became the largest party in the Lords despite having lost the general election.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If the intention of House of Lords reform was to cut the number of Lords, is it not strange that we intend to increase the number instead of reducing it by half?

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

If I tried to defend IPSA now, I think I would be lynched, so I shall not do so. That is not the model that has been followed, and the royal charter is as far away from IPSA as anyone could have contrived.

Let me make two final points. The important thing to come out of today is that we have established a regulator which nobody can veto, a code of conduct which, yes, will be drafted by the press but has to be agreed by somebody independent of the press, the rights of third parties to complain, and probably most important, the right of the regulator, if necessary, to direct both an apology and the method of the apology.

The greatest abuses recently have been the sort of examples that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition gave. Somebody appears on the front page, the subject of a story that is totally untrue. Their career may be ruined, their reputation damaged, their lives, their mental health and their finances decimated, and there is no remedy available. What happens and has always happened is that a very small correction or apology appears later, sometimes. That is the real failure of the system to date and that will now change. All our constituents should have some hope that there may be a fairer system.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if there is a calumny on the front page of a red top, the apology will also be on the front page? If he is, that is great.

[Simon Hughes]

That is exactly what I think the public want. That is why it has been a privilege to work with colleagues of all parties and their staff. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his team, to the Deputy Prime Minister and his team. and to the Leader of the Opposition, his deputy and their team, and to their staff, the civil servants, the special advisers and others who have worked beyond the call of duty, and to the Clerks, including the Clerk of the House. There has been an absolute will to try to solve the problem in time.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it allows me to remind the House that Joseph of Arimathea is thought to have taken our Lord to visit Somerset when he was a young man. Some people maintain that that is mere legend blurring into myth, but I am quite convinced of its veracity.

I think that an established Church is good for the body politic—it is good for us that we can have jubilee celebrations held in St Paul’s cathedral or Westminster abbey, and that we can have that focus of national life through an established Church—but obviously an established Church cannot have as its head somebody who belongs to another Church. That would be logically inconsistent. It would be unfair on the Church of England; it would mean that bishops and archbishops appointed within the Church of England were appointed by somebody who did not share their beliefs and that could not be the right thing to do.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could we consider having as Supreme Governor of the Church of England the Archbishop of Canterbury, thus taking this away from the sovereign?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that might have been an amendment worthy of consideration. It is not the amendment I tabled. My amendment sought to maintain the supreme governorship of the Church of England in a regency whenever the sovereign was not in communion with the Anglican Church under the Regency Act 1937, which requires the regent to be a Protestant and to meet the terms of the Act of Settlement. I would prefer to keep things that way because the Crown and the headship of the Church of England could come back together when a future sovereign was an Anglican, and my approach would not permanently separate the two. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward new thoughts on the matter; one of the reasons why it would have been better to have had a longer time for, and longer gaps in, debating this important subject is because then such ideas could have been discussed.

My new clause is extremely simple. It is a recognition—no matter how much I am sometimes reluctant to recognise it—that the modern world is different from the early 18th century. There may have been many glories in the early 18th century, but one of the glories of this modern age is that we are tolerant—we are tolerant of different religions. We believe that people practising other faiths is something to be welcomed and encouraged, and that has made us a stronger nation rather than a weaker one. Therefore there should no longer be a bar on the grounds of faith in respect of the sovereign, as long as we can make provision for the established Church of England, which there is and which I support.

That circle can be squared by providing for a regency. That relatively simple and straightforward proposal deals with a problem that people have recognised in this country for many decades; we have not suddenly woken up and realised that a non-member of the Church of England cannot become sovereign. Bills have been presented to Parliament to deal with that, and this seems the right time to be doing it, as we are legislating on the Crown succession and we are in discussion with the Commonwealth members who also have the Queen as sovereign to see whether they will agree to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

I start by echoing what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. He has put the case simply: in this day and age, when it comes to a person’s suitability to become the Head of State, they should not be discriminated against because of their religion. That is why I was happy to put my name to the new clause, moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and to his amendments.

I have been campaigning for years against barring Catholics from either marrying into the royal family or succeeding to the throne, particularly the first issue, which is bizarre. Indeed, I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and tabled early-day motions on the subject. We were constantly told that it was all too difficult and complicated to change, and that we would have to change hundreds of lines of legislation in hundreds of Acts of Parliament. But, hey presto! It is now being done. Although the Deputy Prime Minister gets a lot of stick in this House—including from Government Members —and in the media, I am on the record as warmly congratulating him on being the first leading member of this or any Government to get a grip on this issue and to try to solve it.

However, there is one final logical absurdity, which my hon. Friend is trying to address. I repeat this point because it is worth making: in this day and age, a person should not be barred from a position such as Head of State just because of their religion or lack of religion. There are many people in this House who have no religion and who do not wish to come to Prayers or who do so just to reserve their place. They are just as worth while as Members. There is no reason why we have to keep this bar in place.

I am a traditionalist, like my hon. Friend. Even if the new clause were accepted by the Government, it is extremely unlikely that it would be activated in our lifetimes, or indeed ever. As far as I know, there is no likelihood of Prince Charles or Prince William becoming a Catholic. It is therefore somewhat academic, but just because an amendment is academic does not mean that it is not worth debating and acting on if it is the logical and right thing to do. It is unlikely to be activated not just because of the nature of the likely successors to the throne, but because a person who is brought up as a member of the royal family is surely extremely unlikely to want to bar themselves from the throne or put their chances of succeeding to the throne at risk.

[Bob Stewart]

It may be much more likely that the heir to the throne would become an atheist. The problem would have to be addressed in those circumstances.

[Mr Leigh]

Indeed, it might happen that somebody becomes an atheist or an agnostic, or does not want to be a member of the Anglican faith. By the way, I have enormous sympathy, respect and, indeed, love for the Anglican faith, which is inherent in the traditions of our country. However, it is perfectly possible that in some future generation, somebody will not want to be part of it for quite profound reasons of personal conscience. That is why this matter is important. It is not just an academic, legalistic debating point; it is a matter of deep personal conscience. What is more important to an individual than their faith or lack of faith? It is somewhat strange in the modern age to say to somebody that if they want to become the head of this particular state, that job goes with being a member of a particular Christian denomination. It does not fit in with what we do in many other areas of our national life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I wish to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which raise an important point.

It was a bit much for the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to lambast the Government for introducing a Bill that removes gender discrimination in the royal family—something that the last Labour Government said they wanted to do but never got around to completing—and deals with the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and the limitation on sovereigns being married to a Roman Catholic. Were the Bill to cover the much wider issues of disestablishment or of whether the sovereign should no longer hold the position they currently hold in the Church of England, it would be a different Bill and a much wider consultation would have taken place.

The intention of the Bill might be frustrated, however, if the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is right, because the wording of the Act of Settlement about who is a Catholic is very detailed and picks up on almost any evidence of any connection with the Catholic Church at any time in the person’s life. As we discussed earlier, it is highly likely that the child of a mixed marriage will have experienced both denominations —and perhaps the Church of Scotland as well. Many parents offer their children the opportunity to see what different Churches have to offer.

[Bob Stewart]

As I understand it, Her Majesty the Queen has attended a Roman Catholic service at some stage in her life. Does that taint her under the old rules?

[Sir Alan Beith]

It depends whether one thinks that Her Majesty was reconciled to Rome by that action, which did not involve being in communion with the Church of Rome—something from which the Church of Rome would exclude Her Majesty in any event—so it is only on the first of those two possibilities that what my hon. Friend describes might be so regarded. I do not regard it as such, because “reconciled” in that legislation meant accepting the authority of the papacy over the Church in England. That was what the argument was really about. Members of all Churches are very much reconciled to each other these days, because they realise that they share a common faith that is more important than their points of difference.

Voting Age

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). As I think he knows, I joined the Labour party in Bury as a 15-year-old, and when I was 16 and 17, I spent my time doing my best to help dislodge his Conservative predecessor, who is of course now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—although the hon. Member for Bury North may think that that reinforces his argument and detracts from mine.

I shall be brief. I started thinking about this debate a few weeks ago, and came to the issue with a genuinely open mind. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I think said from a sedentary position earlier that he was worried about the squeeze on childhood. I will have to disagree with him. At 16, people can give consent to medical treatment, leave school and enter work, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, get married, change their name by deed poll, become a company director, join the armed forces, and become a member of a trade union. Given that there is already a long list of things that people can do at 16, it seems reasonable that they should also be able to vote.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because the Deputy Speaker is keen for us all to get in.

In recent days, I have held a survey in my Leicester South constituency. Interestingly, apart from the over-50s, those who have taken part in my survey are overwhelmingly in favour of allowing 16-year-olds to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman as we do not have much time.

I am immensely proud that it is Scotland that is leading the way in delivering the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that the Scottish National party Scottish Government are the first Government in the United Kingdom ever to allow our youngest people the vote. In our independence referendum 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to decide the future of our country, and that is absolutely right. This is an immensely exciting and transformative event and it is the right thing to do.

The Scottish National party has supported votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for decades. Winnie Ewing, who was our first Member of Parliament, spoke about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in her maiden speech in 1967. We believe that 16 and 17-year-olds have the biggest stake in our future and it is right that they have a say. I will not go over the reasons why 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote, as those reasons have been eloquently put by several hon. Members. If people of that age can marry, pay tax and join the Army, they should be given the opportunity to decide the future of the country, and it is what the people of Scotland want, too.

Of the 26,000 people who responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation “Your Scotland, Your Referendum”, the vast majority agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in a referendum. In fact, 56% agreed and 41% disagreed. Children 1st, Children in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Electoral Reform Society, the National Union of Students in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison and Unite—all bodies that have an interest in young people and their welfare and rights—responded positively to the proposal to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in Scotland’s referendum.

We can allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum because of the Edinburgh agreement, reached between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, which passed responsibility on all issues related to our referendum to the Scottish Parliament. It is the first time we have had the opportunity to be responsible for a franchise for a national election—and, by God, we are going to use it.

The Scottish Parliament has already legislated to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in health board elections and in the crofting commission elections. Where we have legislative responsibility, we will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. Unfortunately, we do not have responsibility for UK elections. We are not responsible for the franchise for elections to the Scottish Parliament. We are not even responsible for the franchise for local government elections.

It has been ridiculously suggested that because we cannot allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in UK Parliament elections, we should demonstrate our right to allow young people to vote in our referendum. I am sorry, but we are for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We believe that it is right that they should get the vote, and where we have responsibility we will allow our young people the vote. We will not be held back by some of the positions of the Westminster Conservatives. If we were to wait for the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to agree to 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, we would be waiting a long time.

What are we going to do? The Scottish Government are going to bring forward a Bill to allow all 16 and 17-year-olds to register and vote in our independence referendum. We propose to accelerate the paving Bill, which will allow a canvass of 15 to 17-year-olds as part of the electoral canvass plan for 2013, not just the so-called attainers covered by the existing electoral canvass proposals. We are already working closely with electoral registration officers and other stakeholders to develop the legislation and the practical arrangements to implement it. We will guarantee and ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds have a vote in the Scottish independence referendum.

What has been disappointing about the debate on votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum is the attitude of parties and politicians who notionally support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I respect the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), but his Liberal colleagues in Scotland have been what could only be called prickly, oppositional and generally grudging about trying to secure votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum.

In fact, our consultation showed that 17 Labour Members of Parliament objected to 16 and 17-year-olds getting a vote in the referendum, as did practically all the Liberal Democrats. I find that astonishing, and even shameful. If they believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all elections, why did they not support their right to vote in the referendum in the Scottish Parliament? It was immensely disappointing to see the Liberals, in particular, opposing and being prickly and difficult about securing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our referendum.

The fact that 16 and 17-year-olds cannot vote in general elections has been mentioned, but we cannot do anything about that, because we do not have responsibility for extending the franchise in UK elections. Some have tried to suggest that we are proposing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for narrow party political advantage—what a lot of nonsense. There is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, one opinion poll conducted among 16 and 17-year-olds showed that a majority were in favour of remaining in the Union. To suggest that we are doing this for narrow party political advantage is absolute and utter nonsense. The attitude of some of the parties that notionally support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum has been disappointing. They will have to account to 16 and 17-year-olds when the referendum takes place in Scotland next year.

[Bob Stewart]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 16 and 17-year-olds could be on a jury in a murder trial, for example? I am slightly concerned about that.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not agree with that. This goes back to the debate that has been well rehearsed and which we have heard so much about today. There are different ages of responsibility between the ages of 16 and 18. There are certain things that 16-year-olds can and cannot do, there are certain things that 18-year-olds can do, and there certain things that people cannot do until they are 21. We sometimes have to draw a line when it comes to these issues, but to say that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be able to vote when they have such responsibilities and such a stake in our society and community is utterly perverse, wrong and bizarre. Of course they should get the vote.

I am a sponsor of the motion and so will, of course, support it. I will continue to support every effort in this House to ensure that we get votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I make a plea to both the Liberal and Labour parties to stop their opposition to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish referendum and to please help us to deliver it to ensure that we have the first national referendum in the United Kingdom in which 16 and 17-year-olds can vote. Support us, help us, and we will deliver it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I have simply expressed my view and, I believe, that of the majority of colleagues on the Opposition Benches. There is indeed an overwhelming case, and experience has shown that when more people engage with the issue, more become convinced that it is the way forward.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Wayne David]

I want to make progress because time is short; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

As well as the important Power report, various other reports have been produced. Since the Power report was published, there has been more active citizenship in our schools, and more young people have become involved in the debate about issues that affect their lives. A number of Members have mentioned the success of the UK Youth Parliament, and I know many Members were genuinely impressed—some, indeed, were surprised —by the maturity and sophistication of its debates.