Votes at 16

Debate between Danielle Rowley and John Lamont

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I commend the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing the debate and for all his work to promote votes for 16 and 17-year-olds.

I come to the debate as a convert. In my past life as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I voted against lowering the voting age in Scotland, along with my Scottish Conservative colleagues. We objected not because we opposed a discussion about extending the franchise, but because we did not support singling out the Scottish independence referendum for the trial.

Time has moved on, however, and 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the independence referendum, the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections and our local council elections—indeed, some in the Scottish borders even managed to vote for me. In the last few years, I have spoken to many young voters in the borders at school debates, at hustings, on the doorsteps and on polling day. I have been hugely impressed by their political engagement and understanding. It is clear that they take the responsibility seriously.

There are perfectly valid reasons for keeping the voting age at 18, as there are for lowering it to 16, but many of those arguments miss the point. In this country, there is no single age at which all responsibilities and liabilities are imposed; where we draw the line is largely arbitrary. At 18, we can vote, but we cannot adopt a child or supervise a learner driver.

The argument is not about when we become adults—there is no fixed age at which that happens, and of course, not all 16 and 17-year-olds are equal—but I find it convincing that when the voting age has been reduced, the turnout of 16 and 17-year-olds has been comparable to the electorate at large, and higher than that of 18 to 20-year-olds. If lowering the voting age helps to encourage voter participation in our democracy, that alone is a compelling reason to consider it.

The reality is that 16-year-olds can already vote in Scotland and will soon be able to vote in Wales. Like it or not, the decision has been made in other parts of the United Kingdom and now we have an uneven system across the United Kingdom, which is not satisfactory. I accept the UK Government’s position that the voting age should stay the same; that is a perfectly coherent position to take, even though on balance I think it is the wrong decision.

I understand that some colleagues from both sides of the House are looking at this issue from a purely party political angle. Most people—wrongly, I believe—think that young people are more likely to vote for Labour or, indeed, the Scottish National party in Scotland. I would say that, first, if lowering the voting age is the right thing to do, party politics should not come into it. Equally, I point out to my Conservative colleagues that it was the accepted wisdom that 16 and 17-year-olds would overwhelmingly support Scottish independence in 2014, but that was not the case.

In my view, the Conservative party should lead on this issue. We are the party of personal responsibility, and what better way for someone to demonstrate their personal responsibility than by making their mark on the ballot paper? Extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds would make a significant difference to these young voters; it might even convince them to vote Conservative as they grow older.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to point out that I believe that the other parties are being slightly hypocritical about this issue. Labour made it illegal for 16-year-olds to buy a cigarette when it was last in power and, similarly, the SNP wants the age at which someone can buy a cigarette to be raised to 21 in Scotland. Indeed, the SNP Scottish Government are trying to appoint a state-sponsored guardian for all children up to the age of 18. The message from those parties is, “We trust you enough to vote but we don’t trust you enough to make decisions about your health.”

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that smoking and voting pose the same risks?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. This issue is not about risk; it is about personal responsibility and about when people are able to make decisions about whether to vote or how to vote, or decisions about their health. It is about being consistent. How on the one hand can we say, “You have the responsibility and are able to vote,” and on the other hand say that we want to take away young people’s ability to make choices about whether or not they buy a cigarette?

This is an issue that I believe the Conservative Government should take the lead on and I will continue my campaign to persuade them to change their policy.

Strengthening the Union

Debate between Danielle Rowley and John Lamont

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes a fair and reasonable point. While I voted remain, I am also a democrat. Just as the SNP should accept the referendum result of 2014, I accept the referendum result of 2016, and we were all elected to ensure that we deliver Brexit and get the best deal for Scotland and the entire United Kingdom.

Whitehall needs to consider the maintenance and promotion of the Union as one of its central tasks, not as a bolt-on extra. When the Union was in peril during the independence referendum, that worked well. Civil servants wrote a series of analysis papers pointing out the strengths of the UK internal market and the UK’s integrated system, but it should not require the threat of separation to ensure that that becomes a matter of course. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister got there first in a speech last year where she acknowledged that Whitehall often devolves and forgets. Her proposal was to ensure that in reserved areas, the UK Government explicitly look after the interests of the Union in their policy making, while in devolved areas they must look for ways to collaborate and work together to improve outcomes for everyone. Scotland has two Governments, and it is time they were seen to be working in partnership—not against each other—to improve the lives of all the Scots whom we represent as Scottish constituency MPs.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is the vice-Chair of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We have the Chair in the Chamber, too, and I am a member. Does he agree that the Committee is a fantastic example of all parties coming together, working together, discussing the UK Government and the Scottish Government and scrutinising what is going wrong? We need to see more of that working together, and less of the appalling and embarrassing shouting we have seen in the Chamber today.

[John Lamont]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We work very well across that Committee. It is a good example of parties and parliamentarians coming together to highlight the issues that many of our constituents have to deal with day to day.

The dualling of the A1—the issue affects my constituency —all the way from Northumberland to Edinburgh would be a great example of partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. This should be built in as a strategic aim for Whitehall and one for St Andrew’s House to pursue.

As with most things, there is no silver bullet for strengthening our Union for everyone. I know from being out on the doorsteps in my constituency that people in Scotland want their two Governments working in synergy. We should strengthen our Union because it is the will of the people of our land. Recent polling by Policy Exchange clearly demonstrates that the majority of people across the United Kingdom are in favour of the Union in its current form. Some 68% of people in England, 52% of people in Scotland, 66% of people in Wales and 59% of people in Northern Ireland want a continuation of the Union.

However, that polling also confirms that there are concerns across all parts of the United Kingdom about the impact of Brexit on our Union. Majorities in all nations of the UK said that they believed Brexit would make the break-up of the UK more likely. That is the challenge, and it is why this debate is so important. With the nationalists constantly looking for grievance and new opportunities to stoke the separatist fire, we must do more to invest in our Union to ensure that it lasts for many more hundreds of years to come.

The recently published Policy Exchange paper, which was released on the back of the polling, sets out a number of suggestions as to how we might address the challenges. Bearing in mind the consequences of the new powers landing in different parts of the UK as we leave the European Union, we need better to understand the idea of shared rule across the UK as a whole. At the same time, we need to respect the value of devolution with the rights of the devolved institutions.

Intergovernmental relations within the UK have not been as good as they should have been, and that could be exaggerated as Brexit happens because many of the powers repatriated from Brussels will fall within the competency of the devolved Administrations. We therefore need to revisit how the Joint Ministerial Committee works to build better trust between the Westminster Government and the devolved Administrations.

The Scottish Conservatives will bow to no one in promoting and defending Scotland’s interests and making its voice heard across the United Kingdom. Where we differ from the SNP is that we will not do so with the express purpose of trying to split the country in two. Far too often, the SNP picks fights purely for their own sake. This is the SNP’s reason for existence. The difference, though, between us and the SNP is that we will pick fights not because we want to rip up the Union, but because we insist it works better. We have already seen that is a more effective way of standing up for Scotland as the approach of the Scottish Conservative MPs has secured wins such as the VAT refund for Police Scotland and fair pay for our brave men and women in our armed forces.

Scottish Economy

Debate between Danielle Rowley and John Lamont

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Danielle Rowley]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I absolutely agree that education is a fundamental part of growing industry in Scotland.

The collapse of Crummock in my constituency is just the latest example of the deep problems surrounding the financial health and stability of the Scottish construction industry.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady is speaking very well about the economic challenges that Scotland faces. Does she agree that those challenges would be turned into complete misery for the people of Scotland if the SNP had its way and ripped Scotland out of the United Kingdom?

[Danielle Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He will know that I would agree with that.

To focus on the construction industry, the collapse of Crummock is just one of many that we have seen recently, with many job losses, in Scotland. The closure of large employers such as Crummock will have a significant impact on local economies. A number of suppliers and service providers have spoken to me about their worries. A small electrical company and those providing cleaning services have expressed to me concerns about the future of their businesses following Crummock’s closure. Such closures reflect the failure of an economic strategy that is over-reliant on free-market forces, as well as an absence of joined-up Government policy and action, especially in public procurement.

Equality of Voting Ages

Debate between Danielle Rowley and John Lamont

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Danielle Rowley]

I absolutely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I will come on to the differences in voting ages across the UK in just a moment.

Let us look at what has already happened in this place on votes at 16. I am glad and grateful to have secured this debate. I also spoke during the debate on the Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement and Education) Bill secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). There were many passionate contributions during the debate—I made a short contribution—but the Bill did not quite make it to the next stage. It was talked out by the Conservatives for fear of losing a vote in Parliament on whether to proceed. I use the word “fear” deliberately. Some say that the Government do not want young people to vote because they are scared that they do not agree with their policies. That move during the debate showed me that the Government seem scared of their own MPs, some of whom I am sure would vote to support votes at 16.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very good case as to why young people should be able to vote. My party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, opposed the extension of the voting age before the 2014 referendum in Scotland, but having seen how young people in Scotland were so enthusiastically involved in our referendum and the debate about our country and Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom, on reflection we decided to change our position. We now support the extension of the voting age to include 16 and 17-year-olds. I look forward to working with her and others in a personal capacity to persuade other Members of this place that extending the voting age is something that we should try to achieve.

[Danielle Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I absolutely agree that all parties can get behind the issue and work together on it. I would very much welcome that from all parties from all parts of the House. That brings me perfectly on to my next point. Former Chancellor George Osborne has said that

“not only is extending the vote the right thing to do but…the cause is also unstoppable.”

I know that the Scottish Conservatives are supporters, with their leader, Ruth Davidson saying that she is a fully paid-up member of the votes at 16 club. We can speak and we can work together, but when can we vote on the issue in the House? Or are the Government going to block us from voting as well?

Community Bank Closures

Debate between Danielle Rowley and John Lamont

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for bringing this highly topical issue before Parliament.

The announcement in December from Royal Bank of Scotland-NatWest that 62 branches would be shut across Scotland affected my constituency more than most, and I wish to concentrate my remarks on that. Six branches are set to close in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk in the latest in a string of closures in the Scottish borders.

We all acknowledge that banking habits are changing and that branches are less well used than they used to be. However, what banks are failing to appreciate is that for those who do use them, they remain more vital than ever. I share Members’ concern that these closures will affect vulnerable customers as well as cash-handling businesses and community groups that need a local branch at which to deposit money.

The impact of bank closures is particularly acute in rural areas, for a number of reasons. First, alternative services are already stretched. The post office in Hawick, for example, is very busy and will struggle to take on extra banking services. Secondly, connectivity in rural areas remains a big challenge. East Berwickshire has some of the worst internet speeds in the whole of the United Kingdom, with more than a third of people unable to receive a decent connection. How can those people be expected to rely on internet banking as an alternative?

High streets in the Scottish borders are struggling, and Jedburgh and Selkirk in my constituency will be particularly badly hit. Selkirk is currently going through a significant amount of town centre regeneration, only for the bank to now announce that it is going to leave. Another issue with one of the branch closures in the borders is disabled access. Duns is set to lose its RBS branch, and although the Bank of Scotland branch remains, it is only open three days a week, and both the branch and its ATM are not wheelchair-accessible.

Many people in the borders think that these closures have been decided by people with little experience of living outside the metropolitan areas of the United Kingdom. Someone has looked at a map without any knowledge of the local area and drawn red crosses all over it. There has been a complete lack of consultation. RBS simply announced these closures and told its customers to like it or lump it. There is a feeling in my area of the Scottish borders that enough is enough.

Opposition to the latest round of closures is unprecedented, and I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents. Tomorrow I will hold three public meetings on branch closures, spread across my constituency, such is the level of concern surrounding this news.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the announcement by RBS this week that it will keep some branches in Scotland open temporarily—I think one in his constituency, but none in my constituency—does not go nearly far enough and still leaves rural and more deprived communities at risk of losing their services?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will come on to the bank’s announcement this week shortly, but I share her concern that it goes nowhere near far enough to address the concerns that many people have raised.

I accept the Government’s position that this is a commercial decision for the bank. The public shares are not managed by the Treasury; they are controlled by an arm’s length company, UK Financial Investments, whose role is to manage the public investment, not to manage the bank. It would set a dangerous precedent if there were direct Government interference in a decision such as this.

Having said that, I do not believe that the arrangement with UKFI would have prevented the Government from telling the bank that it had got this decision wrong. The announcement this week from RBS, with its minimal concessions, is simply not good enough. A handful of branches will remain open for just a few more months, and in the Scottish borders, only Melrose will be given a stay of execution. No one really expects these branches to avoid closure ultimately.

I was therefore very surprised to read the comments of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), praising the bank for this announcement. I was equally surprised to read his comments at the weekend, when he seemed to be taking credit for what he anticipated would be good news from the Royal Bank of Scotland.