United Kingdom Statistics Authority

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman even though he was not here at the beginning of the debate. We are not short on time and he has promised that he will be brief.

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the results of the freedom of information requests a few weeks ago that demonstrated precisely that the Chilcot inquiry had been designed to “avoid blame”. Sir Gus O’Donnell has been quoted as saying that he recommended using the inquiry’s terms of reference to prevent it reaching

“any conclusion on questions of law or fact”

or to attributing any blame. If we look at the Glen Rangwala report, which simply puts the evidence in front of us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. May I make a plea to those who are looking to catch my eye later on to keep their interventions to the minimum, as there are a very large number of people wishing to contribute to this debate?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but no, I do not recognise those results, because I do not know the context in which those words were said. All too often speeches and phrases are taken out of context. I do not believe for one minute that Sir John Chilcot and his whole report and all the years and the time that he spent were there simply to mislead the public.

Let me try to make some progress. As I have said, I never for one second believed that the then Prime Minister was acting in bad faith, and I do not do so now. For those reasons, I will be urging my Labour colleagues to vote against today’s motion. I will urge them to do so to enable the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to focus properly on the real job of its inquiry, which is to analyse the conclusions that Sir John has actually reached, based on the evidence that he gathered, and to look at the lessons that he says should be learned from his report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member of this House to allege that other Members of this House were bribed—paid—to vote a particular way? Should he not produce evidence for it? What a disgrace.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) did not accuse a specific individual of taking a bribe. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) is perfectly entitled to ask him in an intervention whether he will withdraw what he has said, but this is not a matter for the Chair.

[Paul Flynn]

I am not suggesting that anyone took any money. There are such things as political bribes, with inducements and offers, of which we are well aware in this place. There was a very heavy operation here to convince Members to vote for war. We must look at the situation then.

One Back Bencher wrote to Tony Blair—I speak of Tony Blair with no animus against him. I campaigned for him to be Leader of the House. I have congratulated him again and again on the work that he has done for the Labour party, but it is not the case that there was one failure. It was a failure of the three most important Select Committees in this House, who were all cheerleaders for the war. There were all those who went around saying, “If you knew what we know—we’ve got this secret information—you would certainly vote for war to go ahead.” I believe it was in that circumstance that the decision was taken.

One letter to Tony Blair warned in March:

“Our involvement in Bush’s war will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks.”

It said that attacking a Muslim state without achieving a fair settlement in other conflicts in the world would be seen by Muslims from our local mosques to the far corners of the world as an act of injustice. I believe we paid a very heavy price for seeming to divide the world between a powerful, western, Christian world which was taking advantage of its other side, who were Muslims.

I am certain that in his mind Tony Blair was sincere. He was proved to be right on Kosovo when many people criticised him, and on Sierra Leone he was right. He was convinced on that that the others were wrong and he was going to prove it. One of the pieces of information that he quoted was an interview with Hussein Kamel, who was the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein. It was quoted in the document as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. According to the interview, Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, which he did say in the evidence. But in the same interview, which was conducted in 1995 and was already old news, Hussein Kamel said, “Of course, we got rid of them after the Gulf war.” What was in that dodgy dossier was half the story—evidence, yes, that Saddam had had such weapons, but also evidence that he no longer had them, and that was never published.

What Chilcot said in his report was not the absolution that people believe it to be. He said that the decision to invade was taken

“before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”

and that military action was

“not a last resort”.

According to the strictures of modern philosophy, that means it is not a just war. Chilcot said that Saddam posed no “imminent threat”. In effect, he declared the war needless.

Colin Powell has confessed that he was fooled and lied to, and that he regrets bitterly that he did not follow his natural instinct and avoid the war. Strangely enough, most of the people who were advising him at the time have said that they were wrong and the war was a terrible mistake.

I believe that this House must accept what Chilcot is saying and not take an aversion to it that pleases our political point of view. The issue is one that the loved ones of the 179 have been following. They have gone through years of torment asking themselves, “Did our loved ones die in vain?” Chilcot has reported, and his report was that the decision was taken not just by a Prime Minister but by all those who were gullible enough to believe that case. There were a million people who walked the streets of this country and demonstrated. It was not a clear decision.

We fall into the trap time and again of believing that our role in Britain is to punch above our weight militarily. Why should we do that? Every time we do, we die beyond our responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bradshaw]

No, the right hon. Gentleman had half an hour and a lot of Members want to speak.

Some people cannot accept that however much one disagrees with a decision taken, it can still have been taken in good faith. So here we are debating a motion that seeks to distort and rewrite Chilcot and, in effect, put Tony Blair back in the dock. I am delighted that my own party is having none of this nonsense and that we will be voting against this mendacious opportunism in an hour and a half’s time.

I think there may be another reason why some people persist in trying to claim falsely that there was deliberate deceit in all this. They are more than a little nervous that as we look at what has happened in Syria, and is still happening in Syria today, where there was no intervention and we left a brutal dictator to continue to slaughter his own people, history will prove our former Prime Minister right.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am going to suggest an informal limit of six minutes and see how we get on. It may be necessary to put a formal limit on, but we will start with six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am afraid that my informal speech limit was an abysmal failure, so I will have to impose a six-minute limit to start with. It will have to go down, unfortunately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman in order to pursue these particular matters when we are in fact having a very serious debate on Iraq? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. This debate is about the Chilcot inquiry and parliamentary scrutiny. I have given the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) quite a lot of leeway, but I would be very grateful to him if he got back to the subject we are debating.

[Ian Austin]

This debate is also about judgment, and the right hon. Gentleman’s judgment has been found completely wanting at every stage. It is also about intervention—whether Britain intervened rightly or wrongly—and about the consequences of that intervention. For example, when Britain was intervening to save lives in Kosovo, he said it was an action of “dubious legality” and condemned it as “unpardonable folly”. He demanded a ceasefire and urged the urgent start of talks with Milosevic. When challenged, he said that

“we shall see if I am right”.

History has proved him completely wrong—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is not a debate about the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond); it is about the Chilcot inquiry. I would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he moved back to that subject.

[Ian Austin]

This is the final point I want to make: of course we should learn lessons from the invasion of Iraq, but we must also learn lessons from successful interventions, such as those in Kosovo, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to show some humility and apologise for his mistakes and lack of judgment over the decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am going to drop the time limit down to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

We will have to drop the time limit to four minutes.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I remind hon. Members that there is a five-minute limit on speeches. If too many interventions are taken, then the limit will reduce very rapidly.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

That the Committee consents to the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords].—(Matthew Hancock.)

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

I remind hon. Members that although all Members may speak in the debate, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion.

[Lady Hermon]

On a point of order, Ms Engel. I make this point of order with a heavy heart, but I feel duty-bound to do so. When the certification process was introduced and debated before the Christmas recess, the indication was that when the Mace was moved and we sat in the Legislative Grand Committee, a Minister would be called upon to move the consent motion and then a debate would commence. It was disappointing last night that there was no effort by the Minister to open a debate about why the consent motion was being moved. As I find this happening again today, I seek clarification from the Chair as to whether it is appropriate now to consistently adopt a routine of a Minister moving a motion without further debate.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

The hon. Lady is aware that it is up to the Minister to move the motion formally or to speak to it, but she is perfectly entitled to speak in the debate now, if she so wishes.

[Lady Hermon]

Thank you very much, Ms Engel. I am grateful for that clarification, even though my vote, if we were to vote, would not count in the same way as that of every other Member of this House would count. This is a serious constitutional issue, particularly for those from Northern Ireland.

After years of horrendous violence in Northern Ireland, we had the Good Friday agreement, otherwise known as the Belfast agreement, and we voted in our thousands that Northern Ireland would be part of the United Kingdom unless and until we voted ourselves out of the United Kingdom. That is not going to happen any time soon. My constituents elected me at the general election to represent them fully in this House.

In response to an intervention earlier, the Minister confirmed that there is a Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. However, the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland has only devolved responsibilities. The point that I was making to the Minister was about national charities across the United Kingdom, such as the National Trust. When constituents of mine and those right across Northern Ireland—where we have the Giant’s Causeway, which is owned by the National Trust, and Castle Ward and various other wonderful properties across Northern Ireland—join the National Trust or renew their membership online, their membership fees go straight to the headquarters of the National Trust. The fact that we have a devolved Charity Commission for Northern Ireland does not give it national reach.

The point I am making to the Minister is that we have national charities in Northern Ireland—I have mentioned the Salvation Army and the RNLI, for example—that have their headquarters in England, so will he kindly and generously do my constituents, and indeed all the people of Northern Ireland, the courtesy of explaining why this Bill is designated as exclusively English-only? That is what I would like to hear him explain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Chairman. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I am a member of the Procedure Committee. We were very clear in our deliberations that Mr Speaker would make a ruling as to whether legislation fell within these protocols or not, but that he would not be expected or required to give the raison d’être as to why he made the ruling.

I may be out of order, Madam Chairman, in raising this as a point of order, but having listened to this exchange, I feel somewhat as if the authority of the Chair, and the decision that Mr Speaker has taken, is now being challenged. Critically, that seems to be undermining what we thought was an important principle —namely, that the authority of the Chair should be such that neither a challenge to nor an explanation of his or her ruling would be required or expected.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I remind the House that we are discussing the consent motion, rather than the rights and wrongs of EVEL. I have allowed the debate—it has been a rather two-way exchange—to go on a little because we are right at the beginning of the EVEL process; this is certainly my first time in the Chair during a Legislative Grand Committee, and it is only the third time that this has happened. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Procedure Committee is looking at the EVEL process in the round. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should really make a submission to that Committee. It would be good if we could now move on to discuss the consent motion or put the question.

[Matthew Hancock]

All I would say is that the decision on the consent motion is, quite rightly, Mr Speaker’s.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division on the consent motion, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote. That extends to expressing an opinion by calling out aye or no when the question is put.

Question put and agreed to.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Further to the point of order made by my fellow member of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), it is terribly important that the Speaker is not dragged into controversy. May I gently point out that when the Government initiated these consent procedures we were told that they were to be rare? There is absolutely no point in stirring up bad feeling in Northern Ireland and Scotland, because it does not make a blind bit of difference to the result of any Division or to any part of any Bill. I hope that the Government are listening and that they will use this procedure as rarely as possible.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That point has been noted.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

Third Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As ever, it was a great pleasure to visit my hon. Friend in his constituency. He is right that through city deals and local growth deals we are finally loosening the clammy grip of Whitehall that for too long has stifled innovation and autonomy in our local communities, particularly our great cities, in the north and the elsewhere, which should be powerhouses able to make up their own minds, rather than being hamstrung by Whitehall red tape.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

T8. On Friday, the UK Youth Parliament held its sixth annual sitting in this Chamber. Last year, its members chose votes at 16, and this year they chose mental health services and the living wage, as their main campaigns. Could the House mark the importance of the Youth Parliament perhaps by having an annual debate on the subject chosen by it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course, I defer to you, Mr Speaker, and the usual channels, but I hope we can take up that idea. In selecting mental health for debate, the Youth Parliament was right to shine a spotlight on the sometimes awfully under-resourced and badly organised children and adolescent mental health services around the country. They need reform and improvement, and it was right to push the House to do that. I hope we can take up the hon. Lady’s suggestion of an annual debate on the topics the Youth Parliament selects in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is one of the purposes of the funding that we have made available. I participated in a very good exercise organised by a group of young people called Bite the Ballot to encourage registration in my constituency. It was a great success. I can tell my hon. Friend that £48,000 has been provided to the electoral registration officer in Bradford precisely for that kind of activity.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Almost half of all 16 and 17-year-olds are missing from the electoral register. If they are not on the register, they cannot vote when they turn 18. What additional support is the Minister making available to help local authorities to get young people on to the register?

[Greg Clark]

As I have just said, £4.2 million has been made available across the country, the majority of which has gone to the electoral registration officers in local authorities, who know their area best. They have been invited to concentrate on the areas of under-registration, which have historically included schools. There are good examples of lessons and materials that can be used in schools that have a demonstrated record of achievement in enthusing young people and getting them to register, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to do the same in Derbyshire.

St John Ambulance

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale]

I get the sneaking feeling that my hon. Friends on either side of me are reading the next paragraphs of my speech.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale]

I shall now say—

[Natascha Engel]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am so sorry; yes, of course.

[Natascha Engel]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am supposed to be delivering an open lecture between half-past 2 and 4 o’clock—exactly when this important debate is taking place—so I am grateful to him for giving way.

I have had serious concerns for some time about that financial restructuring and about the reporting and accounting within St John Ambulance. I hope that the debate will make the Charity Commission look again at the organisation, the treatment of its members and, most of all, the governance of St John Ambulance, because the commission has not taken seriously enough what is going on within the organisation. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way, and I hope that he will forgive me for disappearing straight away.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I apologise that I did not see the hon. Lady come into the Chamber. I had said that I would give way to her the moment she walked in because, for reasons that everyone in the House will understand, she has to leave for a long-standing commitment elsewhere. She is, however, one of the three Members who pitched for the debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and I were the others—and I thank her for her support.

I happen to be a supporter of a significant international charity with which I am fairly heavily involved, so I am aware that fundraising in times of austerity is not easy, that returns on investments may be low and that great care and caution have to be taken to protect assets, staff, and the aims and objectives of the charitable organisation. The reaction of St John Ambulance to the situation it faced—due, I believe, to mismanagement—appears to have been draconian and, to say the least, badly handled. It has cost the charity many members and loyal staff, as well as much support in the country.

Faced with severe losses, St John embarked on a national reorganisation in 2011. It said that that was undertaken following full consultation, but as one who was only remotely and peripherally involved, I am in a position to say that no one within the mantled ranks of the priory appears to have been listening and that such consultation as did take place was tardy, inadequate, unheeded and designed to promote and implement decisions that had already been taken. I believe—in fact, I know—that I am not alone in that experience.

On the lines of an experiment conducted by the UK branch of the Red Cross, the St John counties were abolished, with eight regional organisations put in their place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) indicated, any organisation faced with difficulties has the absolute right to restructure. St John, however, might have heeded the results of the Red Cross adventure, which showed that the loss of local ownership led to a loss of membership, support and local income. That process ended with a reversal of the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Grahame M. Morris. Not here.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The UK Youth Parliament voted for it, the Labour party has put it in its general election manifesto and the Liberal Democrats have always supported it. When will the Deputy Prime Minister bring forward proposals to lower the voting age to 16?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have always been very open about this matter. It is something that I believe in and that my party believes in, but it is not agreed on across the coalition. That is the nature of coalition government. My coalition partners are perfectly entitled to have a different view on when people should be entitled to vote. I will continue to argue for my point of view.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend. I remember my own visit to Burnaston in Derby—[Interruption.] Again, Opposition Members do not want to hear good news about manufacturing. They do not want to hear good news about our car industry. The fact is that this country is now a net exporter of cars again and we should be congratulating the work force at Toyota. We should be congratulating the work force at Jaguar Land Rover. We should be praising what they are doing at Nissan. These companies are leading a re-industrialisation of our country. I was at the Cowley works on Monday, where the Mini, which is doing brilliantly, is leading to more jobs, more apprenticeships, more employment, more skills—all things that we welcome under this Government.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for launching our report on electoral conduct yesterday, which found some shocking examples of racism and discrimination during election campaigns. Will the Prime Minister back our call to get political parties, the Electoral Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to work more pro-actively now in areas of tension so that the next general election can be a battle of ideas, not race hate and discrimination?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much welcome what the hon. Lady says and the report of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into electoral conduct, which I will study closely. If there is anything we can do on a cross-party basis to ensure that we keep that sort of disgusting racism out of politics, we should certainly do it.

Voting Age

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was the first Member to attempt to make this change—in, I believe, 1999, when he was crushed by 400 votes to 36. I hope we will have a markedly different result today. He is right that this generation of young people have had all the educational opportunities to understand the democratic system, yet we continue to withhold from them the opportunity to put that knowledge into practice. We should not continue to withhold the vote from the best-educated generation of young people.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, one important point to make—I want to make it before the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) leaves the Chamber, because it relates to a point he made—is on under-18s dying when they go to war. Surely decisions on who goes to war and when affect 16, 17 and 18-year-olds. If they can die for their country, surely they should be able to participate in making the decision on whether their country, for which they are dying, goes to war in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I would quite happily have given way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I really am looking forward to hearing what he has to say—and I suspect that I will disagree with every word of it. It is a shame not to be able to engage more directly before he says what it is I imagine he will say.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) for an incredibly thorough speech in which I think he mentioned every single aspect of why the voting age should be lowered to 16. I hope I do not simply repeat what he said. I fully endorse every part of his speech, during which he was very generous in giving way.

I want to focus on the constitutional issues that this subject raises. One reason we are having this debate is that two things have changed: the proposal to lower the voting age to 16 for the referendum in Scotland; and the new fixed-term Parliaments, which mean that voting takes place every five years and not before. The important point was made, but it is worth repeating, that that means that if an 18-year-old’s birthday happens to fall the day after the general election day, they will be 23 before they are able to vote. Nobody is proposing that we raise the voting age. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) referred to the things that people gain the right to do overnight, as it were, when they become 16, 17 or 18. The situation is totally different with the voting age, because people do not usually wake up on their 18th birthday to discover there is a general election; usually, the election will occur at some point during the subsequent five-year period. I doubt whether the Members who oppose this motion are making the case for raising the voting age, so we need to look at lowering the voting age to make sure that more young people can participate.

Engagement is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East spoke eloquently about school councils and citizenship classes, which the hon. Member for Bristol West also mentioned. We must be honest—the experience of citizenship classes is patchy. In some places, citizenship is taught excellently by dedicated citizenship teachers; in others, it is not so good. However, if we lowered the voting age to 16, citizenship, the importance of democracy and the role of political parties would be taught better at schools. It would encourage MPs, local councillors and other elected representatives to visit schools and make the case for why politics is important.

The counter-argument, which I hear quite a lot, is that politics should not be taken into schools. I totally disagree. Politics is important to 16-year-olds, just as it is to older young people. Politics decides what kind of schools we go to. Politics has ensured that there is access to free education for all. It is politics that meant that the school sports partnerships were abandoned. It is politics that decides what people learn at school—which classes are compulsory and which are not. In Derbyshire, the youth services have been seriously undermined; it was children and young people who were campaigning to keep their youth services open and active. This is straightforward politics, and it is good for young people to engage in it.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned the youth mayor in Newham. Let me give an example from my own constituency of young people taking responsibility. A budget was given to the school council at one of my primary schools, and after much discussion with the teachers, the school council decided to spend the entire £50 on rabbits. The teachers recommended that it not do so, pointing out that they would take a lot of looking after, but it decided to go ahead. Sure enough, they did take a lot of looking after, but those children learnt that if they make such a decision, contrary to advice, there are consequences, and that they had a duty of responsibility to those rabbits. I hope those rabbits are still alive—I have not visited them recently. Even though that is a small story, it demonstrates that if we give young people responsibility, they have to learn how to deal with it properly.

I also think that it is a matter of respect. We as parliamentarians should be saying to young people, “We respect you enough to allow you to make your own decisions about matters that affect you.” This is an important issue that concerns the widening of the franchise and human rights.

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is shaking his head, but the convention states that when decisions are made that affect young people, they should have a say in those decisions. As has been pointed out today, we make decisions in the House about the age at which people are allowed to join the armed forces—as opposed to the age at which they are allowed to go to the front and lose their lives—and the age at which they are allowed to go to work and pay tax and national insurance. They can do those things from the age of 16 onwards. We make decisions that affect young people, but they have no way of voicing their opinions about what we do.

[Mr Sheerman]

As my hon. Friend knows, I interrupt her speech with deep reluctance, because we are on very good terms. She knows, however, that the UN convention is about the preservation of childhood. It contains nothing about the voting age; it is about preserving childhood as a precious space, a principle that has been entirely absent from the debate so far.

[Natascha Engel]

My hon. Friend and I have had long discussions about this issue. I do not disagree with him about the preservation of childhood—in fact, I entirely agree with him about it—but I also think that lowering the voting age to 16 will not encroach on people’s childhoods. What it will do is give them responsibility, which is very different from taking their childhood away. My counter-argument is that, although we make decisions here that affect the day-to-day lives of people aged 16, 17 and 18—and, in my view, those aged up to 23, because many people are knocking on 23 before they are able to vote—we have taken away their right to have a say in issues that affect them. That is what I find so deeply offensive and wrong.

The hon. Member for Bristol West made a strong point about the widening of the franchise. I think that this really is a matter of human rights. It is slightly different from the issue of giving the vote to women, but I agree with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that the sky will not fall in if we give 16-year-olds the vote. The sight of a 16-year-old in a polling station putting a cross on a ballot paper—not one, two, three—should not panic people. This will not mean that the entire polling station is full of 16-year-olds; it will merely mean that younger people too will participate in the decisions that we make in the House. It is a shame that people are so fearful, and worry so much about 16-year-olds taking part in a general election.

The Scottish referendum will give us an opportunity to see how giving 16-year-olds the vote could work. Why should we not view it as a pilot? After 16, 17 and 18-year-olds have had their say in the referendum, we can look at how it went. I agree that the genie is out of the bottle once 16-year-olds are able to vote in a referendum, because after that it will be very difficult to say to them that they are to be denied a vote in the general election that will take place in the following year.

I have some sympathy with the view of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who has described this as an important constitutional matter. Issues were raised earlier about the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Each of them has voted overwhelmingly to lower the voting age to 16, but none of them can do so until we in this Parliament have made the decision for them.

I think it important for us to have this debate, and important for all views to be aired. However, I hope that when we go through the Lobbies, all of us—not just Labour and the Liberal Democrat Members—will vote in favour of seeing what happens in Scotland, and then lowering the voting age throughout the United Kingdom.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—