European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Alex Cunningham

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I remember that clearly. The right hon. Gentleman and I—and, I am sure, Labour Members—can confirm that there are regulations, such as those relating to the British Government’s role in running the railways in India, that it would be appropriate to get rid of, because frankly they are no longer relevant. I suspect that there are quite a lot of other examples.

I want to focus briefly on the EEA. At the start of the referendum campaign, those involved in the leave campaign advocated the Norway model. As it became clearer to them that that was not what they wanted, they moved on to the Switzerland model, with its 150 or so different agreements. Once they realised that that was quite complex, Peru emerged as the model they wanted to emulate, before they eventually settled on the idea of a bespoke deal. As we heard earlier, no one anywhere is willing to identify how such a bespoke deal would work or, indeed, whether it is even possible to put one together.

As other Members have said, it is clear that membership of the EEA does not in any way, shape or form match the benefits we get from being members of the European Union. It might provide an alternative—a step down from our current position, but without the consequences of our leaving completely—to the no-deal scenario. It is a poor substitute, but it is better than no deal. It would keep us in the single market but out of the customs union, and—this major sticking point was, I think, the reason why the leave campaign moved away from the Norway model—it would probably require a financial contribution. It would allow trade deals to be struck, so there are some advantages to it, which is why we will support new clause 22 if it is pressed to a vote.

I want to finish by focusing on the question of whether leaving the European Union automatically means that we also cut our links with the EEA. Articles 126 and 127 of the EEA agreement have already been mentioned. I have been involved in an interesting exchange of parliamentary written questions and answers about the EEA. When I asked what was required to formally withdraw from the EEA agreement, the parliamentary answer stated:

“As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said when he addressed the House on 7th September, there is agreement that when we leave the EU, the European Economic Area Agreement will no longer operate in respect of the UK.”

I followed that up by seeking to identify who that agreement was with and why that would happen. The response stated:

“It is Government policy that we will not be a member”,

so it seems as though the Government have reached an agreement with themselves that we will automatically be out of the EEA. I would suggest that that is not a particularly high bar. Although article 126 makes it clear that we will leave the EEA, article 127 requires us to give notice in order to do so.

As an aside, if we are leaving the EEA, it would probably be courteous for the UK Government to at least talk to its other members, particularly EFTA members, just so that they are aware that that is what we are doing. As of last week, no contact had been made with at least one of the EFTA members. It might be appropriate for the Government to inform them as a matter of courtesy.

New clause 22 is very good, as it would provide us with an opportunity to keep some of the benefits of our EU membership without crashing out of the EU completely, and without seeking the mythical bespoke deal that I do not think anyone believes can be delivered in the timescales that the Government have to work towards. I look forward to the vote on that new clause.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I want to speak to new clause 58 and to cover the key issue of EU pension directives, specifically versions one and two of the institutions for occupational retirement provision directive.

Both versions set out the broad framework for pension fund operation in the EU, concentrating on structures and procedures such as the separation of the fund from the employer, giving strong protection for scheme members, and the establishment of a regulator in each member state. My concerns relate to the effect of IORP II on the running of pension schemes and the Government’s approach to the requirement for legal separation of a pensions institution from the sponsoring employer under article 8 of the directive, and to investment regulations under article 19 that require assets to be invested prudently in the best interest of scheme members, and for any potential conflict of interest to be resolved in the member’s favour.

Principally, I seek an assurance that the Government will introduce legislation for the transposition of IORP II and that they will not seek to opt out of any of the relevant articles but implement them in full. That is particularly important for members of the local government pension scheme, as there remains some confusion in the public domain over whether IORP I was ever applied to it in full.

When IORP I is succeeded by IORP II, the Government could disapply any requirement for separation, as well as any requirement for investment in accordance with a “prudent person” rule. What lies at stake here are the statutory rights of more than 5 million citizens who participate in the UK local government pension scheme. They should not be undermined by virtue of past decisions, or indeed as a result of our leaving the EU. This is made even more important by the proximity of the deadline for IORP II to the date of exit from the EU. I hope that Ministers will confirm that the Government will ensure the necessary measures—articles 8 and 19—are enshrined in UK law.

I now turn to the state pension. As a result of our EU membership, the UK is part of a system to co-ordinate the social security entitlements of people moving within the EU. That system enables periods of insurance to be aggregated, meaning that an individual who has worked in other member states can make one application to the relevant agency in the country of residence. In the UK, that is the International Pension Centre. That relevant agency then notifies details of the claim to all countries in which the person has been insured, and each member state calculates its pro-rata contribution and puts that amount into payment.

The UK state pension is payable overseas, but it is uprated only if the pensioner is in an EEA country, or one with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement for uprating. In September, the Government suggested that reciprocal arrangements would be protected following exit from the European Union, and that is also included in the joint paper on citizen’s rights. Will Ministers confirm that that will continue to be the case, and that the Government will not be seeking to enter individual reciprocal arrangements after our exit from the European Union, but will instead continue to work on the basis of current arrangements?

Votes at 16

Debate between Tom Brake and Alex Cunningham

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate on an important, interesting and topical issue and for highlighting some of the excellent achievements of the young people she has met in her constituency, with whom she has debated this matter. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed.

The hon. Lady described votes at 16 as a radical change. Personally, I consider it to be an incremental change, not a radical change, but that is a Liberal Democrat view rather than a Government view.

I am afraid that I have been needled into responding to a couple of points that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made. He likes to target the Liberal Democrats. He was, I am afraid, posing as a slow learner who did not understand the practicalities of coalition, although I am sure that he understands them very well: there is an agreement between two parties, they form a Government and deliver a programme, but those two parties remain independent and have differing points of view, as set out earlier. It was made clear in this debate that Opposition Members have a clear view.

The hon. Lady, who opened the debate, the hon. Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and the shadow Minister spoke in support of votes at 16. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is no longer in his place, supports votes at 16 or thinks it is a logical conclusion and somewhere we will get to eventually. Other contributions from the Government Benches, whether it was the interventions of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the detailed speech of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)or the lengthy interventions of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who is no longer in his place, made it clear that there is no consensus within the Government on the issue. There are, therefore, no plans to lower the voting age in this Parliament.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will votes at 16 be in the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the next election?

[Tom Brake]

I am pleased to say that votes at 16 is very much party policy, and has been for a number of years. A point was made on whether political parties advocate the policy for their political advantage. We will have to see whether it is to the Liberal Democrats’ political advantage to give votes to 16 and 17-year-olds, but we have held a position of principle for many years that we want to see the policy adopted.

We have heard a variety of facts and figures, both for and against the proposal to lower the voting age, which demonstrates that the evidence is not clear cut. Most studies and polls seem to show that a majority of 16 and 17-year-olds favour lowering the voting age, although the situation is not always clear. A YouGov survey of 14 to 25-year-olds conducted for the Citizenship Foundation in November 2009 found a majority—54%—opposed to votes for 16-year-olds, with just 31% in favour. I regularly take straw polls when visiting schools in my constituency, and I can confirm that there is not unanimous support, even among 16 and 17-year-olds, for lowering the voting age.

The Youth Citizenship Commission, which the previous Government set up in 2009, looked at ways of developing young people’s understanding of citizenship and increasing their participation in politics and, as part of that, whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. In its summer 2009 report, it did not find significant evidence on which to base a recommendation and did not believe that evidence that would lead to a clear conclusion was available or would become available in the foreseeable future. In light of that, it concluded that the question of whether the voting age should be lowered should be decided by political processes. That is clearly what today’s debate is about. While certainly not a silver-bullet solution, I believe that lowering the voting age would help engage young people at an early age in our democracy and political processes and give them a greater say over the many decisions that affect their lives and the world in which they will grow up.

Members have referred to the worrying levels of engagement among young people, and I echo their concerns. Registration among young people is lower than for other population groups. Turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds, who of course can vote, has also been falling. At successive elections from 1974 to 1992, around a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds did not vote. In 1997, that rose to nearly 40%, then to around 45% in 2001 and 55% in 2005. We can all take individual action, and many Members have set out the contacts they have. They referred to the activities they undertake with schools to promote registration and political activity. There are things that we have to do as politicians, unpopular as we are. People may have their views about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but handing over responsibility for our expenses to an independent body was one of the collective actions we needed to take to restore credibility, which is lacking. The most recent Hansard Society annual audit found that only 24% of 18 to 24-year-olds said that they were certain to vote at the next election, and that is an alarming statistic.

A number of Members referred to citizenship education, which has been a compulsory part of the national curriculum in secondary schools for pupils aged 11 to 16 since 2002. It will not only be retained in the new national curriculum for teaching from September 2014 but will be strengthened. It will not be pared back, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said. We are all in agreement with her that citizenship education is key to this debate.

The Government are fully committed to doing what we can to increase voter registration levels. That point was made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who touched on independent electoral registration. He asked whether the Government were trying to increase voter registration, particularly among young people, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have announced that five national organisations and all 363 local authorities and valuation joint boards in Great Britain are sharing just over £4 million of funding to promote voter registration among under-registered groups, which include young people. In particular, UK Youth and the Scottish Youth Parliament are working exclusively on engaging young people, as are other organisations, such as Bite the Ballot. I am sure that many Members will have had opportunities to participate in events in their constituencies that Bite the Ballot has organised. I had the pleasure of doing that at Carshalton Boys Sports college a couple of weeks ago.

Reference has been made to the Scottish independence referendum. The hon. Gentleman said that this was the first time that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland had had the chance to vote. In fact, there have been health board and crofting commission elections in which they could participate. However, Members cannot read anything into the Scottish Parliament’s decision to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum and any effect that that might have on the voting age for parliamentary and local government elections in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament has powers to determine aspects of the referendum, and that is exactly what it has done.

One of the main focuses of the debate has been on the rights and responsibilities of 16-year-olds. We have heard lists of what young people can and cannot do at certain ages. Advocates on both sides of the argument have exchanged blows on those lists, and it is correct that the age limits change from time to time. In truth, however, those lists add relatively little to the debate. There is no standard age of majority in the UK at which one moves from being a child to being an adult. The lists are not pertinent to a debate on the specific issue of whether young people should be able to vote at 16 and 17.

After carrying out an extensive consultation and review, the Youth Citizenship Commission did not find significant evidence on which to base a recommendation, and that is why we are having a political debate on whether young people should be able to vote. There is no plan in this Parliament for a change to the voting age, but the Government welcome and encourage the involvement of young people in policy and decision making. Indeed, we are seeking to increase democratic engagement among the youth of this country through the Government-funded youth voice programme—Members will be well aware of many of its aspects—and the Youth Parliament, which I had the pleasure of welcoming to the Chamber last November. The Youth Select Committee is an important innovation that mirrors parliamentary inquiries. It is now in its third year and I look forward to giving evidence to it. I am sure that we all commend the young people on it for their hard work on their inquiries.

To conclude, the debate has again shown the divergent views in this House on whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be eligible to vote, and that reflects differing opinions on the issue in society at large. There is also no consensus within the Government on the issue. It was not included in the coalition agreement and there are no plans for a change in this Parliament. We are, however, taking a range of measures to encourage young people to register and to ensure that their voices are heard. I am sure that debate on whether to lower the voting age will continue and, for my part, I support the proposal and welcome the ongoing debate.