Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

We were told earlier by the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) that this was a Budget for Telford. Well, it is certainly not a Budget for disabled people, young people or low-income families. It is not a Budget for businesses either. A Budget that projects a systematic reduction in funding for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills cannot be good for businesses.

I am aware that I have a very short time, but I want to briefly mention city deals. The Aberdeen city deal, with £125 million from the UK Government, was announced earlier this year. That is roughly a third of what Manchester got per head, so I suggest that the UK Treasury is not particularly for Aberdeen either.

It has been suggested that the lifetime ISA, which was mentioned earlier, will be helpful for families, but the technicalities mean that it will not be helpful for anybody not looking either to buy a home or to support themselves in their retirement. For example, the money could not be withdrawn to support a couple who have just started having children.

As a Member for Aberdeen, I might be expected to talk about oil and gas, and we welcome the changes made, such as the effective abolition of the petroleum revenue tax and the halving of the supplementary charge, but there are still major issues for the oil and gas sector in relation to banking. It is difficult for companies to find finance at the moment. I am talking not about large infrastructure projects, for which there is the opportunity for loan guarantees, but about day-to-day business. Given the oil price just now, it is really tough for companies, and they are struggling to find finance. Some of the banks, although they are saying nice words to parliamentarians, are not actually lending to oil companies. They are pretty much saying, “Nah,” to supply chain companies, for example, which are the companies we need to be supporting just now.

I welcome the measures on decommissioning, but the UK Government will have to shell out about 62% of the cost of decommissioning oil rigs, so the longer it can be pushed out, the better for the UK Treasury, and this would be a benefit. It is very important that the UK, as one of the first fields to reach maturity, learns fast and becomes good at exporting that expertise. We need to support that.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend commented on the lack of time available. Does that not speak to the wider concerns expressed several times, not just about the budgetary process but about the estimates process in the House? Does she agree that this is an urgent matter for the Procedure Committee to consider?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Procedure Committee, for bringing that up, because it plays nicely into my next point, which is about how the Budget process works. We have had very little time for speeches today.

The Budget and the documentation we are provided with contain a total lack of clarity about Barnett consequentials in relation to the budget lines. For example, there are budget lines around cathedrals and cultural investment but no clarity, even in the statement of funding policy, about whether those things will generate Barnett consequentials and, if so, what the percentage of comparability is. It is very difficult for MPs to scrutinise these matters. The Tax Law Review Committee said:

“the House of Commons has neither the time nor the expertise nor, apparently, the inclination to undertake any systematic or effective examination of whatever tax rules the government of the day places before it for its approval”.

That is partly because of the complexity of the tax rules. Obviously, tax is levied on individuals personally, and then tax reliefs and benefits are provided to families, so it is quite a complex thing to work out. MPs lack the time—we have hardly any time to discuss it today—and the information to scrutinise the Budget effectively. This process needs to be improved as a matter of urgency.

Short Money

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and particularly for his final point about trying to resolve these issues more consensually. I look forward to any conclusions his Committee arrives at. I completely agree that it must make sense at least to ask, and to request views about, what the proper cost of running an Opposition—the official Opposition or, indeed, some of the other opposition parties—should be. That does not necessarily vary depending on the number of votes cast at an election, which is something the current system requires, for example.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as the national secretary of the Scottish National party. It is a good thing that a consultation is taking place, but why limit it just to political parties? Why not extend it to the public and other stakeholders who might have an interest? There is nothing wrong in principle with reducing the cost of politics, so can we get some assurances on reducing the number and cost of special advisers and, indeed, of Members of the House of Lords? Given the proximity of the end of the financial year, when will the Government be in a position to confirm to the parties and the staff they employ what the settlement will be?

[John Penrose]

Obviously, the conclusions of the request for views will depend on what views are expressed, and I do not want to prejudge that. We will, however, want to move promptly and swiftly to make sure that any staff who might be affected by any changes that are announced have the maximum time for planning and that there is certainty as soon as there can be.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I welcome the Select Committee Chairman’s pledge of a further consultation. That will provide further opportunities to air the issues around this matter in addition to—and possibly in parallel with, depending on the timing—the consultation I mentioned in my earlier remarks.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as the national secretary of the Scottish National party. I echo the points already made on Short money. Government is growing, special advisers are growing, the House of Lords is growing, but our ability to hold the Government to account is being stripped back. There is one rule for Tory cronies and another rule for everyone else.

The policy development grant poses serious issues for the headquarters, especially of smaller parties and especially given the prospect of a cut in the middle of devolved election campaigns. Will the Minister take on board the recommendations of the Electoral Commission? What opportunities will be there be for further consultation and cross-party negotiation on both these issues?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the policy development grant has a slightly different mechanism. It has to be dealt with through a statutory instrument rather than by resolution of the House. The statutory instrument will be laid as soon as it is ready, whereupon the hon. Gentleman and everybody else will have an opportunity to debate it. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the Electoral Commission has been consulting carefully and making recommendations about the revised shares to reflect the results of the last general election. I look forward to hearing his further comments at that point.

EU Referendum: Timing

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me this opportunity to commit the Prime Minister’s forward diary in such a specific way, although I think it would be a career-limiting move were I to do so. I suspect that she will nevertheless make her point strongly, and my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to respond to it specifically.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am sure the Minister would agree that the decision on whether to remain in the European Union is at least as important as the decision that Scotland had to take on remaining in or leaving the United Kingdom. There were 540 days between the announcement of the Scottish referendum and the date of the poll. We are not necessarily suggesting that there should be that length of time before this referendum, but if the Minister is saying that there should be a free and open discussion, the period should surely be longer than six weeks.

[John Penrose]

This is where I would respectfully part company with the hon. Gentleman. While it would be stretching a point to argue that holding two polls in the same place a minimum of six weeks apart would be somehow disrespectful or that it would prejudice the result of either poll—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

With that in mind, Mr Speaker, I will endeavour to be brief.

Interestingly, we are having this debate when no referendum date has been set, the starting gun has not yet gone off and the deal the Prime Minister is negotiating with our partners in the EU is not yet agreed—if it ever will be. I therefore agree with the Minister—I do not think I am going to say that often—that in many respects this debate is somewhat premature.

[Patrick Grady]

The Leader of the Opposition called last Wednesday for the referendum to happen on 23 June. Does the hon. Lady disagree with him?

[Pat Glass]

Now the hon. Gentleman is just trying to get me into trouble. I would never disagree with my leader.

Let me deal with the motion by discussing each of its parts, and I start with the premise that no case has been made for holding an early referendum. May I remind this House that we have been debating the UK’s place in Europe on and off for more than 40 years? I voted in the last referendum. It was 43 years ago, so we are hardly rushing at this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and particularly so early. I was not expecting to be raised so far up the list of speakers, but let us take our chances while we can.

I have been struck by the fact that there seems to be a degree of consensus on this issue in the Chamber, on what should be an issue that greatly divides us. We agree on a number of things. We do not know what the date is, and we can all agree on that—even I do not have telepathic powers at Prime Minister’s Question Time quite yet. Beyond that, we have also managed to agree that all our electors—be they young or old, or male or female, and whatever party they vote for—can perform the amazing feat of considering two important issues at roughly the same time. It is a great step forward that we can broadly agree on all that.

Looking at the DUP motion, however, I do not agree that we are somehow in an unseemly rush. I would dispute the use of the word “rush” in the motion. Before Christmas, I had the misfortune to turn 40. It was a chance to look back at my life. Have I gone down a cul-de-sac or down the wrong path? Am I stuck in a rut? Is now the time to throw it all in, go away and run an artisan cheese factory somewhere? Should I get out of politics now? The Whips will be pleased to know that I might just stick with what I am doing at the moment.

None the less, it was a chance to reflect on the fact that I am 40, so I was not born the last time we had a referendum on this issue. It is not that I did not have a chance to vote—I was not even alive when we had the previous referendum. To say that we are somehow in a rush, therefore, misunderstands the long campaign the DUP itself has run to get us where it wants to go. If it had had its way, this would all have been over and done with many years ago—certainly before I was elected to this House. I do not, therefore, accept that we are in a rush.

I do accept, though, that our electors can cope with these things. That goes back to the real reason why we are having a referendum: we want to trust the people. Certain issues are greater than the party divide in this place. Trusting the people is at the heart of what the referendum will be about.

Electors across the board are capable of making important decisions during campaigns that are, by their very nature, compressed. One need only think of the French electoral system, which has a two-week gap between rounds. What happens in the first round dictates the campaign in the following fortnight, and the truth will then be available at the end of that fortnight. For example, a far-right candidate might have got through to the final two in the contest, and a fundamentally different campaign would then have to ensue in metropolitan France. However, the voters manage to cope with that.

Voters are also quite discerning. We need only remember the Darlington by-election of 1983. A chap called Ossie O’Brien won it for the Labour party shortly before the House dissolved for the 1983 election. But a few weeks later, the good voters of Darlington repented of their decision and elected someone else entirely—the current Defence Secretary. I think we all agree that voters are very sophisticated, and they can cope with compression, as well as with doing two things at once. I would therefore urge people to have confidence in their voters.

There was some discussion of the role the media might play. Once again, however, voters in Blackpool North and Cleveleys are more than capable of seeing through what the media are up to.

[Patrick Grady]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Maynard]

In the interests of time, I will give way just this once.

[Patrick Grady]

How does the hon. Gentleman respond to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) about the impact on the purdah period, given that the devolved Governments might theoretically be in purdah for 10 out of 13 weeks?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. It is no different, in a way, from what central Government will have to go through. Every Department will have to work out how it engages on European issues during a long campaign and a short campaign.

I am left in no doubt that this is one of those important issues in the lives of my constituents that passes the “stop me in the street” test. If I am out shopping in my local Sainsbury’s, I am already being asked what I think about this issue. The notion that we can somehow say that the campaign does not start until we the politicians say it does, is rather naive. The campaign has started; the number of emails in my inbox is increasing, and people want to know where I stand. I am trying to deal with those queries, as I am sure every other Member of the House is trying. Setting an arbitrary starting point, when we will allow people to think about this issue, will not be possible. The reality is that we have already begun thinking about it, and the media will keep reporting on it. However, my constituents are perfectly capable of thinking about it for themselves. They are desperate to have this vote. Many of them have waited 40 years for it, and they do not want to wait a single moment longer than is absolutely necessary. Many of them have made their minds up already. They want the vote now, without even knowing what the final decision is or what deal might be reached in Brussels.

In conclusion, I recall the words of my former hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere during consideration of a private Member’s Bill a few years ago. Surely, the question now is not what to do, but, “If not now, when?” Now is the time, and we need to move as fast as we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his colleagues on introducing this important topic and exploring some of the genuine issues of concern in a very moderate and civilised way.

Whatever date is eventually chosen for the referendum and the campaign period, there will always be perfectly good arguments that can be made against it. In this country, by democratic tradition, we narrow down a lot of the time for holding elections to when it is sensible to do so. Traditionally, unless there is a period of emergency, we have them in the spring, early summer or autumn. There are perfectly good reasons for that. It is not pleasant to be out knocking on doors and delivering leaflets in the wilds of winter. It is important to respect the times when different parts of the United Kingdom have their summer holidays. For example, I would not suggest that we hold a referendum in July because that would clash with the Scottish holiday period, or August in the case of England.

[Patrick Grady]

The Scottish referendum was held very successfully in September when we had longer evenings, warmer days, and the full summer period in which to campaign. That would give us more of the time and opportunity that the hon. Gentleman is talking about than a June date.

[Iain Stewart]

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he would like a roadshow visit from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to entertain his electors over the summer, he is very welcome to it.

The point I am making is that there are a relatively small number of periods when we can sensibly have an election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject. This is our opportunity and the Government’s opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to put the respect agenda into practice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and colleagues in the DUP have mentioned the letter of 3 February from the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Labour First Minister of Wales, all of whom hold very different views about the European Union referendum, just as they hold many different views on a whole range of issues. I also tabled an early-day motion on the referendum, which received backing from Members from every party in this House.

Democratic representation does not begin and end in this place. Decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of our citizens are not purely taken here. At the beginning of May, issues such as health, education and transport will be debated and decided on by something north of 20 million voters across the United Kingdom. This has nothing to do with minor sporting events such as the European football championship, or major sporting events such as Andy Murray defending his title at the Queen’s Club. More than anything else—even the respect agenda, important though that is—this is about the Government and those of us who want to remain in the European Union having the courage of our convictions and putting the matter to a thorough democratic test.

A thorough democratic test does not mean simply rushing the referendum in six weeks; it means having a balanced and fair opportunity to debate this important issue. That is why throughout proceedings on the European Union Referendum Bill, we said that we wanted to see a fair playing field. That is why we worked with colleagues across the House to ensure that that happened, and we will be more than happy to work with colleagues across the House on the date of the referendum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out, as I did during the debate last week, that the campaign on the independence referendum called by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon ran for 545 days.

[Patrick Grady]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving cross-party support for early-day motion 1042 on the date of the referendum. Does he agree with the point I made earlier about the impact of the autumn date of the Scottish referendum, which allowed an invigorating campaign to take place during the long summer days with good weather and lots of daylight? There is a lot to be said for an autumn date.

[Stephen Gethins]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I hope that the Government will take into account. In Scotland, both those who campaigned for yes and those who campaigned for no should be credited for having one of the greatest democratic debates that any part of the United Kingdom has ever seen. A great deal of that was owing to the fact that we had a long run-in, and we had the summer to debate it.

We in the Scottish National party have some experience of the matter, and I hope that other hon. Members will listen to us. I hope that they will listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, who led much of the debate over that long period. He rightly gave credit to those on both sides of the debate for the way in which they conducted themselves. He also spoke about the 10-week period, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) raised. The Government have not dealt with that adequately, and I hope that the Minister will tackle it when he sums up.

I want to see a positive campaign, and I am disappointed by what we have heard from Government Members who want to stay in. I am disappointed by some of the words that we have heard from Labour Members, and we will be debating the matter with them. We want to put forward the positive impact that Europe can have. Think about charges for roaming, workers’ rights and the security challenges that we face together as a European Union.

We must always be mindful of where the role of member states begins and that of the European Union ends, because we have not always been honest about that. It was not the European Union that described Scotland’s fishermen as “expendable”. It was not the European Union that introduced policies that were damaging to Scotland’s renewables industry. It was not the European Union that gave Scotland’s farmers the lowest single farm payment in the whole European Union. These were faults of the member state and the way in which it chose to exercise its membership of the European Union. We will bring all those issues to the fore during this debate.

Let us think about the areas on which we have had European co-operation that is much closer to Scotland’s opinion than this Government’s ever could be. Let us look at the refugee crisis—the worst since the second world war—on which the UK Government are not stepping up to the mark, as the Irish Government, who have disregarded their opt-out, have. Let us look at climate change policy, where Scotland led the world and on which the European Union is now leading the charge. Let us look at renewables, which I have already mentioned. Let us look at security issues and tackling, as a European Union bloc, the issues of Ukraine, Syria and all the other huge challenges we face; no member state can face such challenges alone.

My appeal to the House is that we do not want any scaremongering or a re-run of “Project Fear”, because that is the way in which the yes side will lose this referendum. We want a positive debate, but we also want a debate that runs beyond the summer and possibly into September. That is why I will back the DUP motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those protections extend to the 30,000 UK citizens claiming benefits overseas in the European Union? We have yet to hear how the negotiations will affect them.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

Absolutely. I raised the point about the importance of trade union representation and dealing with reactionary right-wing Governments, because time after time since our election in May, we have seen legislation pushed through this Parliament. We now need to rely on the EU to protect the rights of workers in this country.

Built on this firm foundation, social, economic and political union is to the benefit of all across Europe. We must work with our EU partners to achieve that. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) said, from dealing with the refugee crisis on our doorstep to protecting our economies in the face of international challenges, we cannot address these serious issues by pulling up the drawbridge and turning our backs on the international community. If we are threatened by the changing world in which we live, we must face it head on and not retreat into a backward era of international isolationism, which is where this Government will take us.

In conclusion, given the significant and serious prospect of a vote to leave, we must take the necessary time to take the population with us and not force voters to the polls without the opportunity to come to an informed and considered view. A headlong rush would be contrary to our country’s interests on every level. If we act in haste, I fear we will repent at leisure.

House of Lords Reform

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin John Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He need not worry, because I will get there.

Let us return to the hope of many Members of this House—a hope that is shared, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who cannot be here today—that any future reform of the upper Chamber should not only consider its size, but limit it and remove with haste its ability, as an unelected and unaccountable Chamber, to generate legislation. That is an affront to my constituents and an aberration at the heart of the British political system.

Only a few months ago the Government were keen to play down any reform agenda. Their latest antics have the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) as Citizen Camembert rather than Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Prime Minister playing the good cop and leading man as the Black Fingernail. This is indeed a farce, if not a “Carry On”.

While many Members across this Chamber would seek a long-term resolution of the undeniable illegitimacy of the upper Chamber in its present form, the Government tinker at the edges with the Strathclyde review, a botch job done in jig time for Christmas. Although the review offers a way forward, it seems to confuse the role of the House of Lords. Is it to be a mere stamper of Government policy, or is it a revising Chamber that tackles the Government on the tough subjects of the day? Critically, all options would offer an additional burden on the workings of this House and highlight the behemoth that is the Palace of Westminster. If the report were at least linked in some way or form to improvements in working practices such as electronic voting, which would allow us in this place to deliberate more robustly, in more depth, and with reduced recourse to statutory instruments, it would have been a slightly more useful document. For the record, however, I wish to commend Lord Strathclyde and all those involved for seeking to overcome the Government’s obstacles.

While the report is welcome, it highlights the Dickensian, if not medieval, machinations and dubious working practices of this Parliament. It accidentally shows the Alice in Wonderland antics of the so-called liberal democratic practices of the mother of Parliaments. If the review was worth the paper it was written on, it would be my hope, and that of my hon. Friends, that it would seek to uphold the nature of our polyarchy and at least promote its first pillar, namely that control over Government decisions about policy should at all times constitutionally be invested in elected officials—Members of this House elected by their constituents, from whom they derive their political mandate.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and apologise for being unable to stay for the whole thing. He speaks about the legislative powers of Members of the House of Lords. Does he agree that even more pernicious and insidious is the soft power that is held by unelected Members? They can spend much time in all-party groups, have access to Ministers behind the scenes and all the other trappings that are not visible or even open to scrutiny through live coverage of the Chamber because they happen behind the scenes.

[Martin John Docherty]

I could not agree more. The way that operates within this Parliament is pernicious.

Sadly, I believe that in this Parliament, at least, the aspiration and will for change are a lost cause, given that in the previous Parliament alone the Prime Minister appointed 200 new unelected, unaccountable members of the peerage, and a further 45 in the short period in which my hon. Friends and I have been returned to this House. Appointees covering the great and the so-called good include, of course, large-scale donors to political parties and former bigwigs of county halls the length and breadth of the country.

Of the peerage, let me turn specifically to a certain cadre—the archbishops and bishops of the established Church of England. While much has been made of likening their position to that of the theocrats of the Islamic Republic of Iran, my direct challenge to them is this: they have no place in debating—or voting on, should it occur—the civic or religious life of Scotland. I draw Members’ attention to early-day motion 952, submitted by my own hand and signed by many of my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies, which calls on the Lords Spiritual to desist in their well documented, historical interference in the affairs of the community of Scotland since the times of our late and noble King David. Their interference must end if this Parliament is truly to reflect the broad kirk of representation and communities of this political state.

Let us turn our gaze on the other members of the peerage of the realm. Yes, I will admit, through gritted teeth, that within their ermine-clad utopia there are a few souls who work hard. Yet, as exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire in a debate in Westminster Hall only a year ago, we can see the limited work of so many who stipulate that their position is to stand for Scotland in the upper Chamber. The peerage has no constituency—we all recognise that—and yet they purport in that unelected Chamber to ensure that our constituents’ needs are met. One prime example is those peers who have given attendance and full participation a cursory glance and claim substantial sums of taxpayers’ money for the privilege of access to the Bishops’ Bar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin John Docherty]

I could not disagree with my hon. Friend on that very important matter.

The upper Chamber and its shenanigans reflect more a debauched imperial Roman senate than a functioning democratic parliamentary Chamber, bowing and scraping in a place in which the modern world is seen as an inconvenience. Since my election to this House, I have visited the unelected, unaccountable Lords, where I took my place in the Members of the House of Commons’ balcony—a lofty vantage point across which to view the stoor and the oose of ages. It would seem that their lordships are followers of the Quentin Crisp school of housework. Like him, they firmly believe that after the first four years, the dirt doesnae get any worse. Four years of accumulating dust is nothing compared with the accumulation of centuries of privilege and unaccountability. It must end.

There are those who will see this as nothing other than Celtic hyperventilation against a conspiracy of anomalies, arrogance, absurdity, vanity and venality that poses as a pillar of the mother of Parliaments—and they may be right.

[Patrick Grady]

It is not simply a matter of vanity. In 2005, as I am sure Members are aware, the Scottish National party had a democratic vote at its conference never to accept seats in the House of Lords, confirming a convention that had been in place since the 1970s. At no point in the party’s history has it ever considered taking a position in the unelected Chamber.

[Martin John Docherty]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. For as long as I am the Member for West Dunbartonshire and a member of the Scottish National party, that is what I will be sticking to—saying no to seats in the unelected, unaccountable House of Lords.

European Union Referendum Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Since this House gave the Bill its Third Reading in September it has been thoroughly and extensively scrutinised by the Lords, and I should begin by paying tribute to them for their diligent and considered approach. For the most part, their scrutiny has been fruitful, and the Bill returns to the Commons improved in a great many ways. However, on one issue the Lords made a decision that differs fundamentally from the view of the Government and, indeed, of this House. The Lords amendment would lower the voting age for the referendum to 16. This topic has been debated and divided on repeatedly since the general election in May. This House has twice rejected a lower voting age in the Bill, and did so for a third time yesterday, with a healthy majority in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. We have had this debate many times since May.

Other colleagues wish to speak, so I shall be brief. In short, the Government are not at all sure that it is right to lower the voting age, and even if it were, this is not the right way to do so. The voting age for UK parliamentary elections is set at 18, as it is in most other democracies in Europe and around the world. The age of majority is a complex issue.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Scottish Parliament has lowered the voting age, so how does the Minister justify that position to my constituents who turn 16 in the next month? They will be able to vote in Scottish Parliament elections in 2016 and council elections in 2017, but they will be denied a vote in the referendum.

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections is rightly devolved and is a matter for Holyrood. This decision is to be taken in the House across the UK as a whole: it is not a devolved matter but a reserved one. While it is entirely open to the Holyrood Parliament to make decisions on its franchise—and we all honour its ability to do so—it is an inevitable result of devolution that there are different views in different parts of the country, locally nationally, if I can use that phrase, on different franchises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

Not at the moment. The United Kingdom has a tale of two legislatures. On 18 June—the very day that this House struck down amendments to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote—the Scottish Parliament, which is clearly the wiser institution, passed the Scottish Elections (Reduction in Voting Age) Bill to extend the franchise to Holyrood elections. And you know what? It was passed unanimously. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) pointed out, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives has said that she is a

“fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club now”.

I welcome that, along with the fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now for votes at 16. In a rare show of unity—I hope I am not jinxing this—the most recent former leader of the UK Labour party, its Scottish leader and its current leader all appear to back votes at 16. I hope that I have not spoken too soon.

[Patrick Grady]

Given the comments made about the views of 16 and 17-year-olds on this issue, is my hon. Friend aware that both the Scottish and the UK Youth Parliaments have endorsed votes at 16?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment we have a gold standard template for the franchise that we measure at the general election. Over the years we have made changes to that franchise, most recently in 1969 and before that in 1924 and 1928, when we rightly enfranchised women as a result of the campaign by the suffragettes, which we celebrated only a few years ago. We accept all that, but let us have a wide-ranging public debate, not just through the prism of the Scottish referendum but across the whole country, because people have differing views.

Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) put her finger on the nub of the issue: this measure must not be tacked on; it must be seen within the context of all the other age restrictions, and of whether young people are well-formed and ready to take big civic decisions when voting. I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) that I find it inconceivable that turnout would rise from about 45% to 75% just because 16 and 17-year-olds were included. Those figures do not stack up.

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am sorry to say I have not, because the only proposals that have so far been put by the Opposition are for an increase in business taxation—that was in their election manifesto—and a wealth tax, which at the weekend, the shadow Chancellor was talking about potentially introducing in this country. So his proposals—and to be fair to him he has been entirely consistent on this for 30 years—are essentially for a high tax, big state economy where, frankly, private businesses do not have such a big role to play. I think that is the wrong direction for our country.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

How much would the Chancellor save for the public purse by abolishing the House of Lords?

[Mr Osborne]

That is a very decent proposal for the autumn statement, to which we will give proper consideration. People who have been in Parliament with me for the last 14 years know that my view is pretty clear—we should have an elected House of Lords—but of course that view has not prevailed in this Chamber in the years I have been both on the Opposition and Government Benches. However, I do think that while we have an unelected House of Lords, it should respect a constitutional convention that has existed for 100 years, and we need to look at that now.

Finance Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The International Monetary Fund recently said that developing countries lose £212 billion a year through corporate tax avoidance by multinational companies. Transparency will be absolutely crucial in dealing with that, but the Bill makes no mention of public country-by-country reporting. Will the Government look carefully at that, and at any amendments that might come forward, given that it would enable people in the developing world to see the taxes that companies pay locally for their benefit?

[Mr Gauke]

The UK has been instrumental in bringing in country-by-country reporting to tax authorities as part of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which will be of great assistance to tax authorities. We want to ensure that developing countries can benefit from that co-operation between tax authorities and from greater use of data. The publication of country-by-country reporting is best approached multilaterally.

But we should all acknowledge the progress that has been made. For example, much more information is now available to tax authorities, enabling them to assess large companies’ tax strategies. One proposal in the Budget earlier this month was to make UK-based multinational companies publish their tax strategies. Such information would help to incentivise behaviour away from aggressive tax avoidance, which Members in all parts of the House wish to address.