Tenancies (Reform) Bill
Debate between Philip Davies and Stephen Williams
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
It is always a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), with whom I get on very well. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) not just on securing a place in the ballot, which is, after all, a lottery, but on her wisdom and good sense in selecting such an important issue as the subject of her private Member’s Bill. I also thank her for the constructive way in which she has engaged with me and my departmental officials, to make sure that we would be able to support the Bill’s Second Reading, and for securing a cross-party coalition in support of the Bill, even including, as he himself acknowledged, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).
I thank Shelter for working constructively with me and officials at its head office in London. I have also worked very closely with Shelter officials in my own constituency of Bristol West. I also thank Acorn, a new group that works in Easton in my constituency, for campaigning on improving conditions in the private rented sector in general.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) has mentioned how the issue affects students, which is important in her constituency and in mine, so I would also like to thank the National Union of Students for meeting me to discuss the private rented sector. It has been a while since I had a constructive and friendly meeting with the NUS, but that was it and I hope it will be a hallmark of how we will go forward from hereon in.
Members have spoken of how important this issue is in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said that a large proportion of his constituents rent in the private sector, although his constituency is not in the top 20 in the country in that regard. I thank the House of Commons Library for giving me a table while the urgent question was taken. Several Members who have spoken have clearly done so because of the high proportion of tenants in their constituency who rent in the private rented sector. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central just makes it into the top 20—it is 20th in the table—with 32% of her constituents renting in the private rented sector. My own constituency of Bristol West comes second after Cities of London and Westminster. More than 40% of my constituents rent in the private rented sector, so this Bill is very important to me and the people I represent.
Philip Davies
I hear what the Minister is saying, but only as recently as last December he said:
“The Department does not, at the moment, have any comprehensive evidence that retaliatory eviction is a widespread problem.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 281WH.]
The Minister has just said that a high proportion of his constituents are renting in the private sector, but how is it that his Department used to have no evidence and now, all of a sudden, he seems to have all the evidence in the world?
Stephen Williams
I have just begun. I have not come to all the evidence in the world yet, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will give him some evidence. I acknowledge what he says, but a lot of the evidence is hidden. One of the issues is that people are afraid to make complaints about conditions in their property precisely because they fear receiving a section 21 notice.
The Government are committed to promoting a strong, thriving and professional private rented sector where good landlords can prosper and hard-working tenants enjoy decent standards and receive a service that represents value for money for their rent. After a long period of contraction, the sector is expanding strongly and more than 4 million households rent in the private rented sector. We think that is good for the economy and we want to see that trend continue, particularly as it allows flexibility for young people not only to move around for employment reasons as they develop their careers, but to move up the housing ladder as their income expands. That is what I did when I moved from a one-bedroom bedsit to a two-bedroom bedsit, then to a one-bedroom flat and then finally buying at the age of 31.
We also want to see more purpose-built private rented properties, which is, after all, the norm in our fellow European states. That is why we have invested £1 billion in a build to rent fund, which provides development-phased finance to large-scale private rented sector developments that will deliver up to 10,000 new homes for private sector rent. Our housing guarantee scheme will support up to £10 billion-worth of investment in large-scale private rented projects and additional affordable housing.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that certainly makes up a large part of the market.
A helpful breakdown in the English housing survey also shows why over the past three years tenants were asked to leave. That is very illuminating as regards today’s debate, because we are being led to believe that people left, right and centre are being asked to leave in some sort of retaliatory eviction, which simply is not the case. Out of 184,000, 103,000 had been asked to leave because the landlord wanted to sell the property or use it themselves, 18% had been asked to leave because they had not paid the rent and 63,000 had left for other unspecified reasons, which is 35%. In 57% of all cases people were asked to leave simply because the landlord wanted to sell up or use the property themselves.
It is not very helpful just to say that there are “other reasons”, so I asked the statisticians behind the survey for a breakdown so that we could be a bit more specific about what they were and how many there were in each category. I suspect that the Government have not done that and that the hon. Member for Brent Central has not done so either. The statisticians helpfully said that the sample sizes for the response options grouped together as other reasons are too small to break down any further but include difficulties with the payment of housing benefit and local housing allowance, the landlord’s being dissatisfied with how accommodation was being looked after, the landlord’s receiving complaints from neighbours and, crucially, the tenant’s having complained to the council, agent or landlord about problems with the property. So, that was the fourth reason down of the other reasons that are individually too small a sample to be broken down and have their own category. That lays bare the extent of the problem that the Bill is trying to deal with today.
The Government claim that they have been persuaded of the case and that because of a YouGov survey they have overturned everything they ever believed in. It seemed from what the Minister said earlier that that is the basis on which the Government’s position has changed. He did not say that it was a YouGov survey commissioned by Shelter, so I will add that bit for him. The day that a Government support a Bill on the basis of an opinion poll commissioned by a campaign group is a sad day, and the Minister did not even have the nerve to admit that that was what happened. It was a survey conducted by a pressure group, and that is a pretty shoddy reason. He should look at the evidence.
Stephen Williams
I cited the YouGov research, and the extrapolation that could be made from it, as further evidence of the need for the Bill. The compelling need for the Bill has also been illustrated by many other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and reiterated the real-life experiences of their constituents. They have shown why there is a need for the Bill.
Philip Davies
If the Minister would like to intervene on me again and tell me his view of the English housing survey and how much weight should be put on the figures, I would be interested to hear that. The survey has, in just one set of tables, completely undermined the case for the Bill.
Given that the smallest figure that had a category—non-payment of rent—was 18,000, we can deduce that the number of households with tenants who were asked to leave because they had complained about problems with the property has to be substantially less, because it was the fourth category down in the “other” section. The figure must therefore be considerably less than 18,000. That figure also relates to people who have been asked to move from a household in the past three years, so this represents a three-year figure, not just a one-year figure. We know that the figure is very small, but, whatever it is, it will include tenants who have complained but who did not have a genuine complaint, because the complaints in the survey were never verified.
In fewer than 18,000 households were tenants renting in the private sector asked to leave because of a complaint made about problems with their property. Even if the figure were 18,000, that would amount to only 0.7% of all households where the tenant left their rented property in the past three years. That means that fewer than 6,000 households a year were affected. We do not know the exact number, because the figures are too small to be helpful, as the statistician behind the English housing survey confirmed.
Another way of looking at this is provided by the Association of Residential Letting Agents, which has said of retaliatory eviction:
“A recent poll undertaken by possession specialists, Landlord Action, suggests it could be the reason behind around 2% of landlord possession claims.”
It is also important to consider that, according to the English housing survey for 2010-11, only 9% of tenancies ended at the request of the landlord. Based on those two pieces of research, we can conclude that the figure we are talking about is 2% of that 9%. So, according to the best evidence we have, retaliatory evictions might occur in only about 0.18% of tenancies, yet we are told that it is essential that we pass this Bill today. Given that the English housing survey suggests that there are currently almost 4 million tenancies in the UK, that 0.18% would equate to approximately 7,120 tenancies ending in retaliatory eviction.
Richard Lambert, chief executive officer at the National Landlords Association, has said of retaliatory eviction that
“it should not be confused with using the no fault possession procedure to end a tenancy, which in the vast majority of cases is the final resort, not a response to a request for repairs or because landlords are out for revenge. We don’t talk about any other service provider seeking revenge from their customers and there is no reason to suspect landlords are any different. Sarah Teather’s private member’s Bill is aimed at tackling a perception of the ‘worst case scenario’, which is not the experience of the majority of renters who rely on private housing. There is a lack of hard evidence to support a need for the changes proposed”.
How well do the official figures that I have given to the House tally with the claims being made by those in favour of the Bill? Not very well—
Planning (Shipley)
Debate between Philip Davies and Stephen Williams
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on securing—or, from what he said, re-securing—this debate. I am sure his constituents have been paying attention to the powerful case he made on their behalf. I am not sure what they would have made of his reference to “Crap Towns”. I have picked up that book several times on visits to Waterstones or Foyles in my constituency, but have never been tempted to buy it. You will be relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was, that Bristol has never featured in a book with such a title.
This debate underlines the importance of getting up-to-date plans in place as the best way of determining what development is appropriate and where it takes place, and of addressing flooding appropriately through planning. I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that, because Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I cannot comment on the particular proposals he mentioned, in Menston, Micklethwaite and Baildon, or on proposals in Bradford’s emerging local plan. None the less, he raised many important issues that I hope I can address by outlining the Government’s general approach and the reforms that we have made.
In all our reforms, this Government have put plans and communities at the heart of the planning system. The national planning policy framework states at paragraph 150:
“Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities. Planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
An up-to-date local plan, prepared through extensive public engagement, sets the framework in which decisions are taken, whether locally by the planning authority or on appeal. All areas should have some form of development plan, but where these plans are old, the policies they contain may become less relevant with the passage of time. I note, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that Bradford metropolitan district council’s existing development plan dates from 2005, but I welcome its publication of a version of the new local plan for public comment earlier this year. I am sure he is feeding through his concerns on behalf of his constituents to that emerging local plan.
On 6 March, the Department published significantly streamlined planning guidance that reiterated the importance of local and neighbourhood plans. It made it clear that plans must be kept up to date regularly in the light of changing circumstances in a clear and transparent way. Our policy is clear that emerging local and neighbourhood plans may carry some weight in planning decisions before they are formally adopted. The weight accorded to emerging plans will be determined in respect of the specific circumstances of the case, the plan’s stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections and the degree of consistency of that plan with national policy.
National policy is clear that it is the purpose of planning to enable sustainable development, not any development. Localism, to which my hon. Friend referred several times, means choosing how best to meet development needs, not whether to meet them. That is why the NPPF also states:
“local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework.”
I should make it clear that most of the need for new housing, according to information that the Government recognise, arises from all our constituents living longer and from decreasing household size—the number of people who live on their own—rather than migration, which my hon. Friend made out was the case, a case I have heard him make several times. It is the longevity of the whole of the population that is largely driving the need for ever more housing units to be built.
Local authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements. Where they cannot do so, relevant policies should not be considered up to date and the presumption in favour of sustainable development would therefore apply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development means granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies in the national framework that indicate that development should be restricted. These specific policies include building on the green belt or in areas where there are designated heritage assets and flooding, which my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about in his constituency. Therefore, even in the absence of an up-to-date plan, our policy strikes a careful balance between enabling sustainable development, and conserving and enhancing our natural and historic environment.
Before coming on to flooding, I will mention briefly the safeguards on the green belt, as this is relevant to Bradford and the historic environment too, which my hon. Friend mentioned in perhaps a not very flattering way right at the end of his speech. Our planning policy sets out how the Government attach great importance to the green belt. It explains how most development in the green belt is inappropriate and should be granted permission only in very special circumstances, and that green belt boundaries should be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances through the local plan process. National policy equally sets out how planning must take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and take into account all the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
In respect of the historic environment, local planning authorities should set out in their local plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and that they should conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. The Government’s policy is absolutely clear that all development should be supported by appropriate infrastructure, and local authorities have a range of ways to ensure that this occurs. Legislation also prescribes the specific bodies that local authorities must engage with in plan making, which include utilities providers. Compliance with the procedural requirements and consistency with national policy will be thoroughly tested at local plan examination.
My hon. Friend raised issues relating to flooding. He highlighted the importance of ensuring that homes should be safe and secure from all sources of flooding. There are strict tests in national planning policy to protect people and property from flooding, including from the groundwater flooding that my hon. Friend said was a particular risk identified by the experts he cited. Managing the impact of flooding has been brought into sharp focus by recent weather, and it is quite right that attention should be paid to how councils plan for new development.
Following the floods of last winter, we have worked across Government with councils in some of the worst affected areas to understand the impact of those floods. The evidence that we have seen suggests that our policy is working. My hon. Friend should also be reassured to know that 99% of proposed new residential units that the Environment Agency objected to on flood risk grounds were decided in line with the agency’s advice, where the decisions are known. We have been very clear that we expect councils to follow the strict tests in national policy, and that where these tests are not met, that new development should not be allowed.
The main tests to be followed, in summary, are designed to ensure that if there are better sites in terms of flood risk, or a proposed development cannot be made safe, it should not be permitted. The framework is also very clear that residential development should not be allowed in functional floodplain where flood water has to flow or be stored.
The risk of groundwater flooding—to which my hon. Friend referred—is considered alongside other sources of flooding. National policy requires the local plan to direct development away from areas at risk through the sequential approach. This means that councils must first look to locate development outside areas at risk of all sources of flooding. Where appropriate sites at low risk are not available, and sites at a higher risk need to be considered, a site specific flood risk assessment has to be undertaken to demonstrate that development will be safe and resilient—for instance, through flood defence or raised ground floor levels. That should not increase flood risk elsewhere.
Philip Davies
Briefly, I and my local residents want to know what they can do and what the Government will do. It is all right saying what should happen but when a flawed decision is made by a local authority that does not have the expertise to understand the ramifications of the decision—or which is flagrantly ignoring the expert advice—what can my local residents do to make sure that that flawed decision is not implemented? What are the Government going to do to make sure that local authorities do not pursue those flawed decisions?
Stephen Williams
I was careful to say at the outset that I cannot comment on specific applications to which my hon. Friend has referred, but general advice from Ministers is that where there are concerns about particular planning applications or decisions, he should use all the relevant provisions that are in place. Judicial review may be appropriate, and he is exercising his own important constitutional right on behalf of his constituents to raise the issue in this place and to draw attention to what has happened. If a decision has been made and all the processes have been exhausted, I am not sure whether there are any further measures that can be undertaken.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend’s advice in terms of judicial review is helpful but, as he will appreciate, that is a very expensive process. What financial support can be given to local communities to pursue a judicial review when such a travesty of justice has taken place?
Stephen Williams
Judicial review is of course a last resort. We want the democratic processes to work, but my hon. Friend is always able to write formally to the Department where Ministers will act in accordance with advice from officials or from the Planning Inspectorate and advise what other appropriate action could be taken. I urge him to do that if he has not already done so. He indicated earlier that the Secretary of State has already been involved to an extent in decisions in the borough, but I urge him to write in with the concerns to which he has drawn attention in this debate.
A local plan is informed by a strategic flood risk assessment, which includes an assessment of risk from all sources of flooding including groundwater. A strategic flood risk assessment will draw on a range of sources of information. I understand that the assessment for Bradford was updated earlier this year and that it considers flooding from all sources, including groundwater. I suggest that my hon. Friend write specifically to me at the Department so that we can have another look at the issues that he has raised.
The decision whether to grant planning permission is a matter for local planning authorities, taking into account their own local plans, strategic and site-specific flood risk assessments as appropriate, advice from the Environment Agency and from leading local flood authorities, and other material considerations. Those bodies have an opportunity to comment on draft local plans and various types of planning applications where there is a risk of flooding. Bradford has now published its local plan, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that while it is at its current emerging stage, he should make his representations loud and clear to ensure that flooding is taken into account appropriately.
Question put and agreed to.
Private Landlords and Letting and Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill
Debate between Philip Davies and Stephen Williams
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I suspect that both of us would have no issue with people having their own standards of excellence that they could advertise, and the Government and the hon. Member for Mansfield saying, “If you want to be with a good landlord, you should look for those who advertise with this particular crest, kitemark or standard.” By definition, that would encourage more and more landlords—they would lose out on tenants if they did not join—to reach that standard. I agree that that is a far better way of driving up standards than forcing people to sign up to something that they might not follow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it me a chance to stand up and straighten my legs after listening to him for nearly an hour and three quarters. He asked about the number of letting agents and speculated that the Government were not entirely sure. Among the welter of statistics available—I will be quoting some of them later—I am told that we only have an estimate of the number of letting agents. The estimates, based on information from Which?, vary from 12,000 to 17,000.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to the Minister. I apologise if I do not get to hear his speech—as I said, I may have to leave early—but I will certainly read it in Hansard. The figures I quoted were from his Department in 2009—I am not casting aspersions on him or the current Administration—and showed a gap of 7,000. The Minister’s figures still show a gap of 5,000, and that makes this scheme unworkable. I am grateful to him for sharing the level of uncertainty concerning the number of firms that would be involved.
There are other bodies that offer schemes, not just the ones I have mentioned. The UK Association of Letting Agents’ scheme is, like others, wide ranging and covers market appraisal, instructions, terms of business fees, charges and termination of client agreements, marketing and advertising, viewing and access to premises, offers, letting tenancy agreements, rent collection, property management, all that is expected of the tenant and landlord, and termination of tenancies. All those things are in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, why reinvent the wheel when such schemes are working well? Let us try to get more competition into the marketplace to encourage more landlords to sign up to such schemes. That is bound to have more success than a state-imposed solution.
When the last Government consulted on regulating letting agents, many concerns were raised about how a letting and management agent would be defined. I am not sure what view other Members have on that. Some landlords manage properties for other landlords. Sometimes family members manage properties. Those people are not official letting agents, but they are, in effect, operating as letting and managing agents. Would they be covered by this regulation? Would the consequence of the Bill be to send some of that work underground? People might not employ a professional body or registered company, but get other people to do these things under the radar. They might get friends from around the corner—perhaps even unsavoury people from around the corner—to operate things on their behalf to get around the regulatory system.
Another concern that was raised when the last Government considered this matter was what property condition standards would be used to decide whether somewhere was a decent home. Category 1 and category 2 hazards are already enshrined in legislation. Does the hon. Member for Mansfield have something different in mind? Who will determine what is an acceptable standard of property to be let? Which regulatory body will offer its expertise on what definition should be used?
The former Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, Baroness Hanham, stated in reply to a parliamentary question from Lord Browne of Ladyton:
“Letting and managing agents are already subject to consumer protection legislation. Consumer protection legislation covers issues such as giving false or misleading information, not acting with the standard of care and skill that is in accordance with honest market practice and claiming falsely to be a member of a professional body or approved redress scheme. For tenants or landlords who are charged unfair or unreasonable fees by an agent, this means that they are able to report this to their local trading standards officer or to the Office of Fair Trading which has both civil and criminal enforcement powers… Disproportionate regulation on the private rented sector would push up rents and reduce the choice and availability of accommodation on offer to tenants.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 2012; Vol. 739, c. WA444-45.]
That sums up the situation perfectly. The Bill would have a negative impact on the private rented sector and reduce the number of houses being let. It would bring no benefit because there is ample legislation in place to deal with the concerns.
The hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned Shelter. Even Shelter’s website provides plenty of advice on what people should do if they want to complain about a letting agent. I will not go through all that advice now, because that would take up time unnecessarily, which I do not want to do, but I urge people to look at the website. There is one section entitled “Complaining to the letting agent”, which gives detailed information on how to complain to a letting agent. It is an excellent document. There is also a section on “Complaining to the Property Ombudsman”, which explains how to do that.
We have not talked much about the property ombudsman, but I hope other Members will do so. The website states that that scheme
“provides a free, independent service for resolving disputes between letting agents and their customers. Many letting agents are members; those that are must display the ombudsman’s logo on windows, advertising and stationery.”
That brings us back to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. We should encourage more letting agents to sign up to that scheme and encourage people to rent from letting agents that are part of it.
Voting Age
Debate between Philip Davies and Stephen Williams(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he should compare giving a person the opportunity to vote—voting takes five or 10 minutes every five years, or every four years for council elections—with sending them to war. The debate is purely on the merits of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Those who support that change believe they have the maturity to exercise that right and responsibility. I make no comment about other rights and responsibilities.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says it is a matter of people having the maturity to make such decisions, but not too long ago, the House, presumably with his support, voted to increase the age at which people are allowed to buy cigarettes from 16 to 18. If he and the House believe that people at age 16 are not capable of making a decision on whether or not to smoke, why does he believe they are capable of deciding which party should be in government?
Stephen Williams
We have heard four similar interventions from coalition colleagues, and I have the same answer. I do not believe there is an absolute age at which every single right and responsibility accrues. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, I agree that there are very good health grounds for tobacco control and for making 18 the responsible age for consuming a product that is harmful to health. I would say exactly the same about alcohol.
Stephen Williams
I am going to make a little progress. I have given way to everyone who has intervened for the first time, and I know many other hon. Members wish to speak.
As I was saying, these excuses have been used every time anyone has proposed extending the franchise, but in 2013 young people do not just have a good education, they have information at their fingertips via their phones and iPads. They are able to absorb information from all over the world in a completely different way to that contemplated by anyone back in 1968 when this House last debated and then voted to lower the franchise. Family pressure will always be there. We have all met people who say that they vote Labour or Conservative because their family always voted that way. Now, however, there are plenty of countervailing views not just in school or college, but in the bedroom and living room via the internet, where people can weigh up how they see the world and how they want to play their part in changing it, or indeed keeping it the same, if that is their political persuasion.
The longstanding justification for changing the voting age has been the range of rights and responsibilities that various Members have mentioned. There is a long list, from the right to drive a car, the right to join the Army or a trade union, and the right to receive benefits or pay taxes. The waters have been a little bit muddied in this area, partly because of my party being in the coalition, because young people on the minimum wage no longer pay income tax thanks to the fact that we have raised the income tax threshold. Of course, they still pay national insurance and VAT, so Jefferson’s maxim of no taxation without representation still stands.
Philip Davies
On that point, people pay tax based on their income, not their age. Presumably, massively talented child actors who earn an absolute fortune working on films pay tax on their income if it goes above a certain threshold. If an eight-year-old child star earns a fortune and therefore has to pay tax on that income, is the hon. Gentleman putting forward the view that that eight-year-old should be able to vote?
Stephen Williams
I advise the hon. Gentleman not to pick an argument with somebody who was a tax consultant before he became an MP. Such a person—Daniel Radcliffe or whoever else he was thinking of—would probably have that income held in trust by their parents until they reached the age of 16, or whatever the trust says, and the tax allowance goes with the parents. It used to be a classic bit of tax avoidance.
There are plenty of different ages where there are different rights and responsibilities, from the right to be tried in court for a criminal act performed from the age 12 onwards to receiving different amounts of minimum wage up until the age of 21. I think the most compelling comparison of all is the right to marry, which will be extended when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is introduced, and the age of consent to sex. Surely the act of bringing another human being into the world is much more fundamental than the opportunity to vote. If we think that young people are capable of being good parents at the ages of 16 and 17, surely they can have the right to go and vote.
Giving young people the right to vote would also rebalance the changing demographics of the franchise. We all know the power of the grey vote and the higher tendency of pensioners to turn out and vote. The Inter- generational Foundation has recently published an interesting report—
Philip Davies
I would like to, but, as I said earlier, I want to give others an opportunity to speak.
The point is that although those young people are capable of asking very intelligent and searching questions, it does not immediately follow that we should give them the vote. If that were the basis on which we were making these decisions, I would have to agree to give seven-year-olds, eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds the vote because they ask some of the most searching questions. So it is completely spurious to trot that argument out as a way of saying that these people should be able to vote. This is not just about people’s education, intellect or ability to ask searching questions; it is about people’s life experience, too. That is what gives people the basis on which to vote. It seems to me that 18 is a far better cut-off point than 16. I am perfectly happy to concede that these are matters of individual judgment, but I believe that 18 is the right point.
The main point I want to make relates to this idea about people’s education and intellect, and how well-informed they are. Hon. Members have been telling us that that level is higher than ever. If this was a matter of principle, I would have more respect for their opinion. If they held a deep-seated principle that 16-year-olds have the education and information to make these informed decisions, I would have more respect for it, even though I might not agree with it. But that is not the case, because all the people who have so far advocated reducing the voting age to 16 are exactly the same people who voted to increase the age at which people could decide to smoke from 16 to 18. The point is that people are either informed or they are not—they are either educated or they are not. They are not educated on one matter of voting but completely clueless on everything else. They can either make an informed decision or they cannot. I agreed with increasing the age at which people could buy cigarettes to 18, because I believe that 18 is the right age at which to trust people to make such decisions. It is entirely logical to have the voting age and the age at which people can buy cigarettes at 18, because 18 is the age at which people should be able to make those decisions.
Philip Davies
I cannot give way because of the time pressures. It is completely illogical to say that people are so well-informed that they should be able to vote but they have no idea about whether or not they should smoke. People say, “Well, smoking is harmful for you”; the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) says that it is a matter of public health. But that is an argument for banning smoking altogether. If people wish to say that they want to ban smoking altogether, let them say that—but they do not do so. They say, “We want people to be 18 before they are able to make that kind of informed choice.” People have not been arguing for banning smoking; they have been arguing for raising the age limit to 18. The same should apply to voting as applies to smoking. It cannot be that one is suitable for 16-year-olds and one is suitable for 18-year-olds, as that is simply illogical. Therefore, it is not a matter of principle for people that 16-year-olds are able to make these informed choices; it is a matter of convenience.
There is nothing so nauseating and ridiculous as seeing MPs trying to court the youth vote—trying to appear trendy by wanting to pursue these sorts of youth matters. That is what this is all about; it is about MPs trying to look trendy and youthful in their constituencies. To be perfectly honest, it is rather pathetic. It would be better if they at least had some sound logic behind their views and really did trust 16-year-olds to make decisions—all decisions. What we have heard today is hon. Members saying that they believe that 16-year-olds are capable of voting but are not capable of making other decisions that affect their lives. Voting can be very harmful. I say to hon. Members that if the public ever decided to put the lot on the Labour Benches into government again, that would be very harmful to them. So it is not just smoking that is harmful when people make a bad decision at 16; voting can be a very harmful thing, too.
I believe that people should make a decision at the age of 18 on all these matters, be it whether to smoke, whether to drink alcohol and whether to vote. The people who take an opposite view have not yet persuaded me and they have not come up with any logical reason to support their belief that the smoking age should be increased from 16 to 18 whereas the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16. It is a nonsensical argument and I do not support it.