Business of the House

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

The impact of LED lights in road traffic accidents is an important issue. I will indeed ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a full response from a Minister, or that a Minister comes to the House.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Labour committed in our manifesto to phasing out animal testing—a goal that is not only widely supported by the public, but critical to advancing scientific innovation. However, that achievement requires cross-departmental work. Will the Leader of the House allow time to debate that issue so that Parliament can explore how to turn that commitment into concrete action, and will she join me in hoping for a cruelty-free Christmas?

[Lucy Powell]

I do join my hon. Friend in hoping for a cruelty-free Christmas. She raises important issues on which we have a number of manifesto commitments. She will know that they are not currently in the legislative programme for this Session, but I am aware of the strength of feeling, and I am sure that things will be brought forward in the usual way.

Business of the House

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I think we can all welcome the ceasefire in Lebanon and hope that efforts for a ceasefire in Gaza are successful soon. At the end of the day, we all want a peaceful solution, and we need a political route to a two-state solution, so a ceasefire is only the beginning of a process. It is really important that trust is maintained and that we can work towards that long-term sustainable peace.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

If anyone wants evidence of what a Labour Government can do, they need look no further than the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Within weeks of coming into office, the scheme got £1.5 billion returned, which has made a huge difference to nearly 1,000 of my constituents. Yet the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which is subject to similar arrangements, has not seen such a return of funds. Could we have a debate in Government time to get to the bottom of this crucial issue?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the Government’s proudest achievements since the election is following through on their commitment to transfer the mineworkers’ pension scheme and all the benefits that it has brought to constituents such as hers. I will raise the issue of the British coal staff superannuation scheme, and I will ensure that she gets a full reply.

Business of the House

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by welcoming back my hon. Friend? It is a huge pleasure to see a friend back in the House and I congratulate him on his victory.

My hon. Friend raises a point of great seriousness. It would be possible to consider it during the Queen’s Speech debate next Thursday, which covers matters of health, but this is something the Government must be aware of more broadly. Issues relating to suicide have such a devastating effect on families. They tie in with the Government’s efforts on mental health and increased spending on mental health to try to help people in, or heading towards, that situation.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

We have just heard that Liberty Steel is restructuring, which will inevitably lead to job losses in Rotherham and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). While we will, of course, hold Liberty Steel to account for the long-term future, we also need the Leader of the House to find time in which we can hold the Government to account, because the underlying structural issues, for which they are responsible, have not been dealt with. Please will he find time for an hour and a half debate on this very important topic?

Votes at 16

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and it is a privilege to raise this subject again in Parliament. There are 1.5 million 16 to 17-year-olds in the UK and they are missing out on the vote. I am hugely grateful to all the young people who, in the lead up to the debate, made themselves aware of it, alerted others, provided briefings, tweeted about how the issue affects them, and even turned up today to watch. That commitment is a clear indication of the political will of young people, which currently goes unserved.

There are so many things a person can do when they become 16. They can leave school to enter work, give full consent to medical treatment, consent to sexual relationships and even get married, if they choose to.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that in England and Wales people cannot get married at 16 or 17 without parental consent; there is not the ability to do that of one’s free will.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I recognise that point. Sixteen-year-olds may also join the armed forces, change their name by deed poll, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right, become a member of a trade union or co-operative society, and even become the director of a company. On top of all that, 16-year-olds in work are required to pay income tax and national insurance contributions, yet those 16-year-olds paying taxes are not allowed a say in how they are spent.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Everyone, if their income is high enough, has to pay tax and national insurance. A child who has a sufficient level of income—who is, for example, gifted money by relatives—is eligible to pay income tax, but still has no say. To what level is the hon. Lady suggesting that we reduce the voting age?

[Sarah Champion]

I am not suggesting reducing the voting age below 16. I am suggesting 16 for the reasons I have already stated—that people may consent to sex, for example, and so are recognised as adults in other areas. Surely 16-year-olds having no say if they pay tax is not right. It reminds me of “no taxation without representation”, an expression, coined 250 years ago, that eventually led to the American revolution. I do not intend to start a full-scale revolution, but I hope that we trigger radical reform.

Moving away from the status quo is difficult, as history recognises. In 1918, votes for women was not a popular cause, but the minority who knew it was right paved the way for millions of British women, who have gone on not only cast to their vote, but regard doing so as the norm. Tracing history further back, much the same could be said of the Chartist movement, which fought for the vote for the working classes. Once again, at the time, that idea was regarded with animosity and was resisted, but society quickly came to see the opening up of the vote as fair and just. The time is right to open the democratic system even further, and to include 16 and 17-year-olds among the group of people who are able to vote. It would be a bold and pioneering move that would really show how far we have come as a country.

Since the debate was announced, I have heard from many 16 and 17-year-olds throughout the country on why securing the vote is so important to them, and particularly from the young people of the Rotherham youth cabinet, who went out of their way to come to my office last week to share their thoughts on voting at 16. At the meeting, Oliver Blake, who was previously our Member of Youth Parliament, said:

“I feel that the major issue preventing people from supporting the Votes at 16 campaign is that people say you’re not mature enough. I don’t feel that argument is valid. You have people at all ages who don’t use their vote wisely; you can see this by the number of people voting for extremist parties or joke candidates, but you don’t exclude them from using their vote. I want to be able to vote because I want a say in my future, and I know I’ll use that vote responsibly.”

Rotherham’s current Member of Youth Parliament, Ashley Gregory, expressed his desire to help choose his future by voting now. He believes that issues of direct relevance to young people, such as university tuition fees and education, demonstrate his case. At our meeting, he said:

“I find it difficult to hear MPs having conversations about what the level of tuition fees will be, how higher education is funded or even what curriculum we study in school without being…a legitimate part of that conversation. These are decisions that affect me, but I’m not allowed a voice on them.”

The arguments in favour of voting at 16 are varied, but each in its own right is strong, from the argument that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote empowers them to engage with the political system, to the argument that young people voting would lead to a fairer and more inclusive youth policy. Furthermore, there is the argument that young people should not be expected to contribute to society through taxation as members of the armed forces, or by parenting children, without having a say in how that society is governed. Another persuasive argument is that the low turnout of younger people at elections might be dealt with by engaging them earlier in the political process. Taken individually, each of those arguments is forceful, but collectively they make a robust case for reform.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that schools still have a tremendous role to play in educating young people about using their vote? It troubles me that young people do not generally vote—the 18 to 25-year-olds. There could be much more education in schools to encourage young people to see how important voting is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely support my hon. Friend on that point, which I will come to.

I recognise that introducing voting at 16 is a bold and radical proposal, but it is an opportunity to invigorate a new generation of politically active and engaged citizens, and that would create a more open and fair political system. Due to new technologies, young people are more informed than ever before, and more able to seek out information and to campaign on issues that affect them. Recently, my office received a letter from a young woman who wanted to volunteer with me. She wrote about her deep passion for women’s issues and feminism, and her views were profound and well informed. We should not expect any less from our young people.

In the information age, when anyone is able to find out about an issue at the touch of a button, it is not surprising that more young people than ever are expressing a desire to engage with the political system. There is, however, a flipside to that. While we must celebrate the fact that many young people are choosing to engage actively with politics, we must also be cautious, because there are problems in the system that need fixing. Those problems will not be fixed overnight, but voting at 16 might help to address them.

Opening up democracy to young people is an important way of confronting the democratic deficit faced in the UK. Electoral turnout in the UK has been on a downward trend since 1950, when 84% of the population turned out to vote; turnout was only 65% in the most recent general election. Membership of our political parties has fallen; the Conservative party, Mr Bone, has gone from being 3 million strong in 1950 to having only 100,000 members today. At the most recent elections, only 44% of those aged between 18 and 24 voted. Rather than turn our backs on the problem, we must confront it.

By offering votes to 16 and 17-year-olds at school and in colleges, and improving citizenship education, we can embrace the important civic duty of voting in our education system. Using citizenship education as a tool to support young people in developing their political understanding is key, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) indicated. When I asked young people in my constituency about citizenship education and what they had learned about politics as part of that, some of them in their final year of school replied that they had only three or four sessions in which they had talked about politics in the entirety of their secondary education. Is it any wonder that we are seeing a decline in voting, and that political apathy has become the norm?

People are too quick to use the system as an excuse for not moving ahead with democratic reform. I hear arguments such as, “Young people aren’t educated well enough about politics to be able to use their vote wisely.” Surely that is a call to give them a well balanced and politically neutral education, in a way that is similar to how we teach religious studies, rather than an argument for suppressing young people’s opportunities for involvement in democracy. To blame the system rather than change the system is a regressive and unhelpful stance.

As Members of Parliament, we should be leading the way by empowering young people, rather than turning them away from the door of democracy. We should recognise the importance of increasing the participation of young people in politics. Allowing 16 and 17-year-olds such empowerment in Scotland, where they are being afforded a vote in the independence referendum, has reignited the issue on a national level, and that is one of the reasons why today’s debate is so timely.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is difficult to construct the intellectual case for why young people in Scotland may vote on whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom, but not on anything else?

[Sarah Champion]

Absolutely; there is flawed logic there. We see in Scotland the impact that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum is having on their political engagement. Young people are often featured on the news or in discussion programmes, debating their opinions on Scottish independence. It inspires me to see those young people discussing the issues and taking a stance. The validity of their position is not for me or anyone else to judge, but their engagement with the debate is brilliant to see, and it can teach us lessons about how an inclusive politics is an attractive and fair politics.

This argument applies more broadly. At the heart of the issue is the notion of civil liberties. The debate is not about whom a 16 or 17-year-old votes for, but about recognising their maturity and providing them with a vote, and about a society building them up to use that vote to the best of their ability. Ultimately, this should not be for anyone except 16 and 17-year-olds themselves to decide on. If they feel that they are mature enough to have a vote, we as politicians and as a society should trust our young people enough to allow them to exercise it. I have read that public opinion is against the votes at 16 campaign, but it is not public opinion that matters so much as the opinion of 16 and 17-year-olds. It is their opinion, rather than those of others, that we should listen to and act on. Young people are rightly calling for the right to vote.

[Dr Coffey]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is a great supporter of the Youth Parliament, which has been embraced more and more by this House. However, does she not find the very low turnout surprising? The person who won the nomination to become the Member of Youth Parliament for my constituency secured fewer than 200 votes, which shows that an opportunity for young people across Suffolk Coastal—indeed, the country—to vote for their own Members of Youth Parliament gathered little interest. Why would it be any different for the national Parliament?

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Her point is interesting. I will come on to the Youth Parliament; nearly 500,000 people voted in the elections to it. I am sure that, like me, she will work with her Youth Parliament Members to broaden the campaign, so that more young people vote.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that in Stockton-on-Tees, hundreds of young people participated, because schools got involved and encouraged young people to use their vote to elect their youth parliamentarians, and it was a great success. The situation can vary across the country, just as it does for national elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with that. I want to come on to some of the organisations that are helping with the campaign. The votes at 16 coalition, led by the British Youth Council, has been campaigning for votes at 16 for 10 years, backed by 16 and 17-year-olds across the country. As recently as November 2013, the UK Youth Parliament voted to make the issue of votes at 16 its national campaign, after balloting some 478,000 young people nationally. The campaign was then chosen in the Youth Parliament’s annual debate in the House of Commons. Members of the Youth Parliament are democratically elected by young people in their constituency, so the fact that votes at 16 was voted to be their priority campaign shows just how important the issue is for young people nationally.

As an example of the strength of feeling on the issue, I would like to read an extract from Hansard of the debate, from the speech of Shakeel Hajat, who represents the east midlands. He said:

“Votes at 16: what a topic! Through the conversations that take place during annual sittings and conventions, it crops up constantly in the debates of the UKYP, and rightly so. It is the most relevant topic to young people: 49,945 of them voted for ‘Votes at 16’ to be the national campaign for the UK, making it the most popular topic on the agenda today. For too long this issue has lingered in our hearts and minds, and now it is finally time for it to be given long-awaited attention.

Members of the Youth Parliament, I stand before you today as a 17-year-old: a 17-year-old with responsibilities, but without the right that should go with them. For example, at 17 I have the right to have a wife and children. Obviously I have neither. However, the Government say that at 17 I can take the responsibility of having a partner and children, but I cannot influence the society that I would want for my kids because I do not have the right to vote. I am denied that right not for reasons connected with my knowledge or political awareness, but because I am…younger than the required age. That one year has cost me my representation, my political participation and, most important, my voice. Members of the Youth Parliament, we are being robbed.

A common argument against votes at 16 is that many 16 and 17-year-olds do not know enough to vote. Another is that there would be too low a turnout at polling stations. However, those are not sufficient reasons to deny 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. Every age range contains people who may not have enough political knowledge to vote, yet we do not stop certain people voting on the basis of their political awareness, and even if turnout is low, we will have empowered young people. We will finally be represented on councils, in the European Parliament and at general elections, and the Government will have to listen.

You may be interested to know that the same arguments were used against the vote for 18-year-olds and the women’s suffrage movement...In the past the UK has led the world in voting reforms, but now I fear that we are trailing. Giving women the vote was a huge step towards a fair and equal democracy. It was the breaking down of a civil rights barrier, and I assure you, Members of the Youth Parliament, that votes at 16 will be the next step.”

The strength of feeling is clear, and it is represented not only by other young people across the country but by young people’s organisations. London Youth, the National Union of Students, the Scottish Youth Parliament and the British Youth Council are only a small sample of the young people’s organisations that are actively speaking out in support of the campaign. I am grateful to all of them for the support that they have given me for this debate.

Similar debates are happening in schools and colleges. Last year, Newham college held a discussion group on voting at 16, to which students of all ages and backgrounds contributed. That debate found, once again, that the majority of students were in favour of reducing the voting age to 16. I am told that much of the discussion focused on the right level of maturity required to vote. While some students argued that 16 was too young, many argued that people matured at different rates, so having the option to vote younger was important.

It appears that, if you ask 16 and 17-year-olds whether they should be allowed to vote, the majority will consistently reply that they should. Opponents of voting at 16 express concerns about undue influence over a 16-year-old’s vote, especially from parents and peers. That should not be a reason to turn down the opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, but an argument for improving the information and support available to young people in the lead-up to their first vote. If young people overwhelmingly argue that they want to vote, turning it down due to the impact of their parents seems unfair, unreasonable and, to be quite honest, patronising.

I am pleased to see that many Members of Parliament have already pledged their support to the campaign. In particular, I am proud to belong to a party that recognises the voices of 16 and 17-year-olds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has already argued, and I completely agree with him, at our party conference that to change our politics, we have to hear the voices of young people, not only on matters that affect them immediately, such as education, but on matters that interest them or will have an impact on their future. We need to hear from the young people demanding a job, campaigning on mental health, or volunteering to help elderly people in care homes. For the votes of young people to matter, we must recognise that, while it is important for young people to hold the Government to account over youth policy, it is equally important for political parties to wake up and realise the contribution that young people can, and do, make to our society.

We in the Labour party have worked hard to move towards a fair and representative democracy, and I know that changes are starting to happen outside the party as well, but too often that has focused exclusively on the voices of women or of ethnic minorities. It is time that we realised that young people, too, have little representation in our political system, and that giving 16-year-olds the vote is one way to rectify that imbalance. There is potential for politicians to gain much deeper relevance to young people by implementing a reduced voting age. Pushing that change through would win considerable respect from a potentially lost and disenchanted generation.

Voting at 16 will also open up policy making to become fairer and more accountable. By being accountable to 16 and 17-year-olds, the system will become skewed such that politicians, policy makers and the Government naturally gravitate towards a greater consideration of youth issues in policy formation. That is especially important in a system where young people feel so disengaged.

[Alex Cunningham]

Perhaps one of the policies that would be influenced is university fees. Governments might have approached the idea quite differently if they had to account to 16 and 17-year-olds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree; it echoes what I have been saying. If young people were able to have a much stronger voice, we would listen to them and make our policies fairer.

We are at a point in history when the statistics tell the story of declining trust in party politics and its ability to effect change, not specifically among young people but across the board. There is a feeling of being disfranchised in all our communities and among all age groups, and a real and urgent need to reverse that feeling before it continues into future generations. Engaging young people will help to build up a politically interested society and will bring change not just now but for future generations.

Toni Paxford, a member of Rotherham’s youth cabinet, told me that, for her, the issue was not necessarily the signal that getting the vote would send, but the signal sent by not being given it. She told me of a friend who spends most of her spare time volunteering for charity, as well as of her own experiences raising £3,000 independently for local charities. She argued that by not giving 16-year-olds the vote, society fails to recognise the important contributions that young people can make, and that the failure to recognise those contributions would bring about a culture of apathy among young people.

That point brings me to the contributions made to our society by 16 and 17-year-olds. Toni’s example is one of an incredible volunteering commitment, but such contributions to society come via other routes as well. Sixteen-year-olds can legally become parents, but they raise their children in a society in which they cannot have a say. They can legally go to work and contribute to our economy but are not allowed a say in what our economic policy should be. Perhaps most starkly of all, we let 16-year-olds join our armed forces and thus represent our country, but do not respect them enough to give them a say in our defence policy.

It is not fair or right to allow that set of conflicting messages to continue. We cannot expect 16 and 17-year-olds to contribute to our society through various means—economically, physically, intellectually or socially—in a capacity where we recognise them as an adult, but then give them the democratic rights of a child. That conflict is already being recognised in a number of countries, such as Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Argentina. We must not allow ourselves to fall behind: we have been pioneers of voting reform in the UK in the past, and I hope that we are open-minded enough now to continue that trend. It is high time that we recognised the clash within our expectations of 16-year-olds. We trust our young people to contribute to society in many ways, so we should start to give them their democratic rights.

If people counter the campaign for votes at 16 with arguments that 16 and 17-year-olds are not mature or responsible enough to vote, I will argue that they should look to the many mature and responsible ways in which 16 and 17-year-olds are already legally entitled and expected to contribute to our society. Allowing voting at 16 would send so many positive signals to our young people. It would say, “We value your voice. We value your contribution. We believe you are responsible.”

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and apologise that, owing to problems with my train, I was not here at the beginning. I may have missed her saying this at the start of her speech, but does she agree that if her argument is taken forward, at the very least the idea should be piloted in a small, designated area rather than rolled out nationwide?

[Sarah Champion]

I would argue that it is already being piloted in Scotland and Wales, where the responses are positive. However, if the only way the Government will take the idea forward is by piloting, let us pilot.

Positive messages are crucial to creating a new generation of politically engaged and inspired people who will go on to teach their future families such values, and are exactly why voting at 16 is important. The onus is on us to show young people that they count too.

The votes at 16 campaign is not a new one—it goes back approximately 10 years—but public interest in it is gathering towards critical mass, particularly given the 2012 vote in the Welsh Assembly in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 and the fact that 16-year-olds will be voting in the Scottish referendum. There is a clear and strong appetite for the reform. I accept that it faces strong opposition, but radical change always does. Change is not always comfortable or easy, but when it is right and just, sidestepping the need for it simply shows cowardice.

It is time that 16 and 17-year-olds were recognised for the things that they can and do contribute to society. The country might not be quite ready for it, but in my view, that means our task is to make the country ready. We must take up the challenge and make the political reforms required to give young people a stronger citizenship education, a greater degree of political knowledge and a broad range of political opportunities. Only by doing so will we give the vote to 16-year-olds in an effective way. By raising our young people rather than pushing them down, we will open up democracy and create a generation of more inspired and confident citizens, who have real faith that politics can make changes for them, their families and their communities.

For too long, the idea has been denied and the issue has been sidestepped. As far back as 1998, the British Youth Council surveyed 1,000 young people and asked their opinions on votes at 16; the response reinforced the desire for 16-year-olds to become a part of the democratic system. In 1999, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) proposed an amendment on the issue to the Representation of the People Bill then going through the House; it was defeated by 434 votes to 36, showing that at that time the opinion of Members of Parliament was significantly against votes at 16. That year, however, the Trades Union Congress passed a motion calling for votes at 16.

Through the early years of the 21st century the campaign gathered strength, galvanising support from the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and the Young People’s Rights Network, and even featuring in the electoral manifesto of the Liberal Democrats. An Electoral Commission review of the idea was launched, and private Member’s Bills on voting at 16 were brought forward in 2004, 2005 and 2008. Some progress has been made in recent years but Parliament seems consistently to refuse to give the issue the attention it deserves. On the 24 January last year, Stephen Williams MP led an historic debate in the House of Commons on extending the vote to 16—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It is normal to refer to Members by the constituency that they represent, not by name.

[Sarah Champion]

I apologise for that slip, Mr Bone.

The motion for that debate stated:

“That this House believes that the age of eligibility for voting in all elections and referenda in the United Kingdom should be reduced to 16.”

Incredibly, it won the Commons vote, with 119 Members voting in favour and 46 against, yet the Government have still done nothing to send a signal to young people that their voice and their vote are valued.

A persistent refusal by this Government to permit voting at 16 sends a message to 16 and 17-year-olds that their views on society are not valid. That is not and should not be the case. Our 16 and 17-year-olds will form the next generation of creative thinkers, business leaders, scientists and engineers. We will and do expect them to contribute to our society, both now and in future. Our message to them should be that we expect them to contribute to a society that appreciates them, that welcomes their opinions and that is willing to act to represent their views. If we cannot act to bring that about, it should be no surprise if our young people become alienated from the democratic system.

Already, the political system serves to alienate young people. The average age of an MP is 50, and less than a quarter of MPs are women. We cannot expect young people to engage in politics if it is seen as unfamiliar to and unrepresentative of them. I do not believe that granting votes at 16 is the final or only step needed to engage young people politically, but I believe that it would be a really positive start to the process. We must show young people that we value both their contributions to society and their opinions about how things should be done.

In government, Labour introduced citizenship to the national curriculum. Rather than paring that back, we should be bolstering the teaching of citizenship and politics in schools. Research has shown that if someone votes in the first election after they reach the age of majority, they are more likely to carry on voting; conversely, someone who does not vote in that first election is unlikely ever to vote. As Members of Parliament, we have an important role in structuring a society that teaches young people that using their vote is worthwhile and that their voice is valued as part of society’s decision making.

We know that people are encouraged to vote when it is easiest and most convenient for them—that is the experience from postal voting—so some campaigners have argued that we should consider having polling booths in schools. That would mean that the first time sixth-form and college students voted, they would do so in a supportive and welcoming environment. Surely that can only be a good thing. Such modifications are crucial in opening up our democratic system. If we want to understand why young people do not engage as much as we would hope, we must start by addressing the environment in which they engage. If we cannot get that right, young people’s entire experience of political engagement will start off on the wrong foot.

Some might argue that that role should fall to the young person’s parents, but leaving it to parents alone allows for a much more variable rate of participation by young people, potentially based on the parents’ own view of whether it is important to vote. We should not be looking to establish a system in which young people decide based on their parents’ intentions, but one in which young people are well informed and have enough support to decide for themselves.

After today’s debate, I hope that every MP—not just the ones here in the Chamber—goes to schools and colleges to discuss this issue with young people in their constituency. I hope that young people take the initiative to write to their MP and tell them why it is so important. I was aware of the issue and believed in it, but I did not actively campaign on it until I heard the young people of Rotherham telling me why it was so important to them. As elected Members, we are here to represent our constituents, and it is particularly important that we represent those who do not have a voice of their own. Hearing the passion of so many young people who believe so vehemently is enough to make one realise that allowing voting at 16 is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do because it is inclusive. It is the right thing to do because it recognises the contributions that 16-year-olds make to society.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. First of all, interventions are short. Secondly, it is entirely up to the hon. Member who is speaking whether they take an intervention. The hon. Lady has kindly taken the intervention, but we do not want half an hour on it. I think we have had enough.

[Sarah Champion]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman turning up to the debate. Had he heard my speech, all his questions would have been answered. I refer him to Hansard. I absolutely agree that children should be made aware of the political process from a very young age, but I do not agree that those younger than 16 should be given the vote, because in other areas of their life they are still treated as children, whereas in some areas of their lives 16-year-olds are treated as adults. That is where I believe the discrepancy lies. Most importantly, giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds is the right thing to do, because it sends a message about the values that we as society place on them. It shows them that we believe that they are important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I was careful to say that that was the position in England and Wales, and not in Scotland. I am familiar with the law in Scotland, which is a matter for Scots. People in England and Wales are perfectly capable of going to any jurisdiction in the world to do various things that they are entitled to do there.

When it comes to joining the armed forces, the hon. Lady left out two important qualifications. First, although 16-year-olds can join Her Majesty’s armed forces, they cannot do so without the consent of their parents. We do not accept that 16-year-olds should be able to join the armed forces purely on their own say-so; we insist that their parents consent to that decision. Secondly, we do not deploy 16-year-olds in theatres of armed conflict. We make a clear decision, following on from the UN convention about child soldiers, that we do not deploy young people in conflict zones until they attain the age of 18. Those are two important qualifications.

[Sarah Champion]

I hope that I made it very clear in my speech that I was not saying that we were deploying 16-year-olds. I was merely saying that they were able to represent our country at an international level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. I will mention opinion polling, but it suggests that we should set out what we think is right and have some confidence that it will stand us in good stead, rather than make a cynical calculation of what we think people in some age group might or might not decide to vote for and take a view for that reason, which has a great likelihood of backfiring.



The reason why I have laboured the point about age categories is that if we do not set the voting age at 18 —the age at which we suggest that children become adults—I am slightly concerned about where we will set it. I know that the hon. Member for Rotherham is advocating that we set it at 16, but I am concerned that once we move it to 16, based on her arguments, there are no good reasons why we should not make it 14 or 10, for example. We say that 10 is the age of criminal responsibility, at which people may be held accountable for their actions, so why not 10, 12 or 14? I have met plenty of 14-year-olds in my constituency who are perfectly capable of listening to facts and arguments, making very good arguments themselves and making up their own minds. By the hon. Lady’s argument, there is no logical reason why I should not give them the vote. If we move away from 18, there is no obvious place to stop, which I think is a good reason for sticking where we are today.

[Sarah Champion]

Obviously I have not made my argument very clearly. In numerous fields, 16-year-olds are recognised as adults in law. The hon. Gentleman has shown some of the present anomalies. I would like to clear up those anomalies. It is precisely for that reason that I am arguing for votes in law. He looks confused, so let me give an example. People can have sex at 16 but are not allowed to watch it until they are 18—there are all sorts of anomalies like that, and we need to clear them up.

[Mr Harper]

Although I used to be a great fan of tidying things up, one of the things that I have learned in my time in politics is that life is quite complicated and that some of those anomalies exist for very good reasons. For example, although the hon. Lady said earlier that people can get married and have children at 16, and it is perfectly right that they can legally do so, I do not think there are very many people who would advocate doing so or say that, as a general rule, it is a good idea for 16-year-olds to get married and start a family. I think that most people would consider that 16 is rather too young for someone to do that.

Also, regarding the hon. Lady’s point about children having sex and watching sex, I hope that she is not suggesting that the age at which children can participate in pornography should be reduced. As I said, I am very happy that the age for that is set at 18, which is not the same as the age at which people may have sex, for very good child protection reasons. Again, the trend has been against any reduction in the age at which children can participate in pornography.

All of the rules on age may not be logical and tidy, but a lot of them exist for very sensible reasons. The hon. Lady says that she would like to tidy some of the rules up. Some of the arguments about increasing the age at which people can buy tobacco and do a whole bunch of other things—use sun beds, for example—were championed by her party. I am perfectly happy to accept that there are people who think that we should change the legal age for doing lots of things to a lower level, and if they want to reduce the voting age as well, that seems logical and consistent. However, I find it very odd that people who support raising the age at which we let people legally do things such as using sun beds and purchasing tobacco—it is perfectly sensible to hold that view—simultaneously hold the view that people should be able to vote at a younger age. It is not logically sensible to hold both those views; to do so seems to make no sense at all. If someone votes, they are making decisions about who governs the country, about tax rates, about where we deploy armed forces and about all sorts of important issues. If people think that young people are capable of making those sorts of decisions, I do not see how they can also say that young people cannot purchase a packet of cigarettes. That does not seem to make any sense at all.

Let me just pick up on the point that the Electoral Commission made, which has been mentioned. In 2004, the commission published the results of a review that it had carried out on the age of electoral majority; the review took 12 months and was pretty extensive, and it was set up under the previous Government. Having carried out that research, the commission concluded that the minimum voting age should stay at 18. That conclusion was based on international comparisons; on the minimum age limits and maturity, although as I have already said the maturity issue is not one that I am particularly focusing on; and on research that the commission had carried out among the public, which suggested there was strong support for keeping the minimum voting age at 18 and which also showed that young people themselves were divided on the question. I will come back to that last point in a moment, because I have a relevant story about it of my own; it is similar to that told by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), but has a different conclusion.

The commission also referred to voter turnout, although I have to say that the argument about voter turnout is not my strongest argument; just because people between the age of 18 and 25 turn out to vote at very low levels, that is not in itself an argument against reducing the voting age. Having said that, it is an odd argument that lowering the voting age will engage more people, because there is no evidence that suggests that 16 to 18-year-olds would turn out to vote in higher numbers than those aged between 18 and 25.

The commission recommended that the candidacy age should be brought into line with the voting age and thus be reduced from 21 to 18. That is a very sensible proposal. It seems to me that if someone is able to vote and make a decision about who their representatives are, they ought to be able to stand to be one of those representatives themselves. The House has debated the issue previously and I know that a number of younger people have been elected to local authorities, although no one under the age of 21 has been elected to the House of Commons. As I say, the suggestion seems perfectly sensible, but it prompts a question. If someone believes in reducing the voting age to 16, do they also believe that 16 to 18-year-olds ought to be able to be candidates at elections? I genuinely do not know the views of the hon. Lady and the Parliamentary Secretary on that issue; the hon. Gentleman might like to fill us in on what the Liberal Democrat view is.

Let me deal briefly with a number of the arguments that the hon. Lady made. The one that I thought was not very sensible was about the various previous campaigns about voting—for example, the campaigns to enfranchise women, first the campaign to enfranchise women generally, and then, of course, the campaign to reduce the voting age for women after they were enfranchised at a higher age level than many people wanted. That question arose when we were debating the private Member’s Bill on voting age. There is an obvious difference between enfranchising women and reducing the voting age. Unless something horrible happens, a 16-year-old will become an 18-year-old in due course and will then be able to vote. Women, who were unable to vote were never going to be anything other than women and therefore were never going to be able to vote. So giving the vote to women is qualitatively different from giving the vote to children, because a 16-year-old may not be able to vote today but will of course be able to vote in two years’ time.

That point relates to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who is no longer in his place, raised earlier. As an MP, like all hon. Members, I am sure, I visit youth projects and schools. I visit schools right down to primary schools, where I talk to very young children, and right up to secondary schools, including sixth forms, where there are students who are old enough to vote today. I treat all the young people I meet with great respect. First, I respect them in themselves; we debate and have arguments. Secondly, I am of course very well aware as an elected Member that if I am talking to a 13-year-old today, in five years’ time that person will indeed be casting a vote. When I was first elected to the House in 2005 and I went round schools, I was very clear that in 2010, when I would be seeking re-election, any 13-year-olds to whom I spoke would indeed have a vote and would be able to make a decision on my future.

Consequently, I just do not follow the argument that just because someone is not entitled to vote today that we pay no attention to their views, because we only pay attention to people who can vote. I pay attention to the views of all my constituents. Some of my constituents—for example, Jehovah’s Witnesses—do not vote because they choose not to, but I still listen to their views and take their arguments seriously. About 30% of my constituents chose not to vote at the last general election, but when people come to me to state their views on something, I never engage in a conversation with them about whether they are likely to vote for me. I treat everyone’s views with great respect and I am sure that that is true of all Members, so the idea that we do not listen to young people and we do not pay attention to what they think—that we do not think about tuition fees, education or similar things just because young people under the age of 18 are not able to vote—does not hold water.

We have to set the line somewhere, and I think that the right place to set it is the age of majority—the age of 18—when we basically decide that children become adults. That is where I think the line is best left. I do not think that that means that we do not engage with children in debates and arguments in schools and colleges; I and all other Members do engage with children in that way perfectly well. Also, those who campaign on this issue because they think that it will in some way pay an electoral dividend for them—I am not putting the hon. Member for Rotherham in that category—should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, be careful what they wish for. If we treat young people with respect and engage them in the argument, they will have more respect for us than if we just agree with something that some of them think because we consider that it will make us more popular. As I say, I do not put the hon. Lady in that category. The voting age should stay where it is—at 18—and I am against what the hon. Lady is proposing.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. He says that charities are restricted from political campaigning. If that were the case, they would not mind or object to this Bill. The issue is the direct engagement of some charities in political campaigning. My concern, which I have raised time and again, is that there should be a much greater focus on ensuring that charities target help on the front line and walk the walk rather than talk the talk.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I want to speak specifically in support of amendment 66 and more generally about clause 27.

Like several Members, I have had more correspondence about part 2 of this Bill than about any other issue since being elected. The undemocratic nature of the Bill has shocked my constituents, as well as charities across the UK. I urge the Government to listen to the voice of the people and this House and make radical amendments to the Bill rather than try to force something through that is clearly not fit for purpose and has not had adequate consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

I am confused about the distinction that the hon. Lady is making between charitable campaigning, which is reasonably protected by this measure, and party political charitable campaigning, which is of course illegal under charity law anyway. What aspect of charitable campaigning is she worried will be wrongly interpreted, and why is the existing legislation not sufficient to deal with that?

[Sarah Champion]

First, why do we need a new Bill if the existing legislation is working? As a specific example, if GROW, my local organisation that protects women who have suffered domestic abuse, was seeking a change of which I was very supportive and was saying, “Sarah is very supportive of this”, I worry that that might fall within the new provisions.

[Simon Hart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Champion]

No, I am sorry—I will not.

Amendment 66 would remove the 50% reduction in financial thresholds, and I support that. Indeed, I would like to go further and support the removal of clause 27 in its entirety. That position is also supported by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which says in its report:

“We have not seen adequate evidence for setting the new thresholds for expenditure at the levels imposed by Part 2 of the Bill. The Government must explain the reasoning behind its decisions during the passage of the Bill. Even if the Government can make the case for imposing lower levels, it must be able to give a convincing account of why it has chosen these particular limits as opposed to any others. If it cannot do so, we recommend that the existing levels continue to apply until such point as the case for change has been made.”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—