Turing Scheme

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Layla Moran

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

As always, the hon. Member anticipates what I will go on to say. When the funding provided under Erasmus and the funding provided under Turing are compared, there can be no doubt that there has been a real-terms cut—and that is before we take the cost of living into account. I will go on to talk about that.

Even if term starts at the beginning of September, it does not follow that students need cost of living funding to arrive in their bank accounts only on day one of classes. Students have to travel to the country, pay up-front rent costs, buy books, get medical checks and, in some circumstances, get visas. Aria told me that she was quite lucky; although she does not come from a particularly well-off family, they were able to help her find the money for her flight. She has been able to find a cheap flat, and she has been living off some savings from a part-time job last year. Uruguay does not require students to have special visas on arrival, although other countries require proof of funds checks, which Aria tells me she probably would not have passed without the Turing funds.

To come back briefly to flights, I am sure that the Minister will point out that the Turing scheme offers some funds to students from less well-off backgrounds. When I asked Aria about that, she said that she did not know about it, but in any case she could not see how it would have helped her, given that she had to travel before the funding decisions were announced. It is a good idea in theory, but it is poor in practice.

I have three other points to make on the funding model. First, there was a decision to make funds available to institutions on a single-year cycle. That means that when universities and colleges are encouraging students to apply for places abroad, they can only tell them what sort of places might have funding, but not what sort of places actually have funding. That leads to the sort of uncertainty that Aria felt as she travelled to the other side of the world on her own, without any knowledge of whether she would in fact receive financial support, and indeed to the uncertainty she continues to have, as she still has no word on whether she will receive funding for next term, which she is due to spend in Taiwan. As a parent, I cannot imagine the stress that her family must have felt. A 24 or 36-month project cycle would allow institutions to plan partnerships, provide certainty to students and, importantly, ensure wider access for all. That is surely the intention of the Turing scheme, right?

Secondly, I would like the Minister to comment on the amount of funds provided. In response to a written question that I tabled earlier this year, the Minister’s Department set out that countries are determined to have a high or low cost of living with reference to data from the World Bank, Erasmus and the OECD, but it did not explain how the references to each of those data sources impacted the groupings. I find some of the groupings totally baffling. Group 1, the highest cost of living group, contains most of North America, New Zealand and Australia, but the only European country is Switzerland. Group 2, on the other hand, contains most of Europe—equating the cost of living in the Czech Republic with that in Denmark, or that in Antarctica with that in Ireland. It feels a bit like a one-size-fits-all category that has not been properly targeted to the reality of the cost of living overseas, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out. Given that the Government are always quick to say that inflationary issues are a global issue and not simply an issue for the UK Government, I find that strange.

Worryingly, the amount allocated per student has fallen regardless of which country a student travels to. Under Erasmus, the maximum a UK student travelling to a European country in 2021 would receive each month was £415, or £600 for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but the Turing equivalent is £380 and £490. We have simply fallen behind what Erasmus offers, and the Government must review that at the next spending review.

That brings me on nicely to noting that Turing funding is guaranteed only until the 2025 spending review. If institutions are to build long-lasting relationships, and if the Government are serious about offering education to our young people, funding needs to be guaranteed long into the future; it cannot just be a short-term sticking plaster to pacify those of us who saw the benefits of EU membership and did not want to leave. The situation certainly shows how short-sighted it was to decide, late in the Brexit negotiations, to leave Erasmus.

Finally, there are delays in getting funds to institutions and out to students. I have been dipping in and out of Aria’s story. I mentioned that she found out that she would receive funding on 18 August, some six months after applying and weeks after having to travel to her placement. It is now 5 September, and when my team spoke to her yesterday she had still not received the funds. She is getting her usual student funding, which helps with rent, but there is very little left for day-to-day living. Those sorts of delays clearly put students, who ought to be at the heart of the programme, at risk.

To touch on an important but not particularly exciting element of the debate, I have to tell the Minister that the project reporting tool being used by Capita—and presumably approved by the Department—is terrible. To put it in slightly better language, universities are required to provide updates and make requests for funds to be released, but whenever universities do so, the system locks and they cannot use it again until approved by Capita. That creates an administrative headache and is clearly adding to the payment delays I just mentioned. There is no proper audit trail of what funds have been released and when, and universities are being left to make repeat requests. I urge the Government to engage with universities, Universities UK and the Russell Group to see how the process can be streamlined for everyone’s benefit.

The last point I will touch on is the Government’s short-sightedness regarding the scheme. Even if we ignore the benefit to each and every young person of having the chance to live and learn abroad, the Turing scheme is meant to be a core part of global Britain and how we present ourselves on the world stage. The problem is that those relationships are not one sided, yet the Turing scheme decidedly is. It does not offer any element of reciprocity, which has made it incredibly difficult for institutions to set up longer-term partnerships. That is worsened by the exclusion of professional staff from the scheme. Where previously UK education and research was promoted and strengthened through staff exchanges, now we are left in the cold. It is about being at the forefront of cutting-edge research and development, about tackling the next pandemic and responding to the climate crisis.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. She talks about the lack of reciprocity and the inability to form a cohort of students across the world who have connections and then go on in their professional lives to keep in touch. They are what is sorely missing from the Turing scheme. We have heard nothing from this Government about how they are going to address that. The scheme was never just about money, as woeful as that is; it is about making those connections. How are we going to foster them?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. From a reciprocity perspective, for all that we do not necessarily want to talk just about money, there is an economic disbenefit to universities and constituencies such as mine. Students who previously came under the Erasmus scheme may not come under Turing, with a resulting economic loss to both the university and the wider community.

On a more practical level, good working relationships with international institutions are vital to the Turing scheme, given that the decision to apply or waive fees for UK students abroad sits with the host university. There are additional steps the Minister could take to make global Britain a reality and to boost our soft power. It currently costs over £1,000 to sponsor an intern coming to the UK from Europe, and that is now only available to degree students. As Universities UK put it,

“The UK is essentially closed to inbound interns, resulting in a loss of skills to UK business and damage to partnerships, while implicitly expecting other countries to facilitate visas to take in UK outbound interns.”

The relationships between medical, veterinary and health science institutions have been put under immense strain as a result of the Government barring incoming students from treating patients and therefore from taking part in clinical electives. There is no reason for those partnerships to keep going if we cannot provide equal opportunities. An urgent amendment to the visa rules is needed to allow the supervised treatment of patients by visiting students. Coupled with the ongoing uncertainty regarding the future of the Horizon programme, the failings in the strategic intent of Turing means that we continue to retreat from the global stage.

At the other end of the education spectrum, but no less important for our soft power, Brexit has caused a sharp decline in the number of European children who are able to visit the UK on school trips. My party’s policy is to seek to negotiate passport-free travel for UK and EU schoolchildren on a reciprocal basis. I hope that is something the Minister can agree with as a common-sense measure, with a benefit disproportionate to any costs.

I will end by reading something that Aria said to me:

“I never thought I would have the opportunity to study or travel abroad like this and feel incredibly lucky and grateful to be able to do so. However it has been incredibly stressful. I have never travelled outside of the UK before, and don’t have external financial support if anything goes wrong. More communication from the scheme administrators and earlier decision making would make such a difference to students like me.”

Surely we can all agree on that?

Energy Suppliers and Consumer Rights

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Layla Moran

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This is a 30-minute debate, so we will not get a speech from him. I agree that consumers need choice. Until this winter, many Members probably did not know the differences between the energy markets in Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK.

I came to this issue largely through casework. I saw a puzzling trend of constituents seemingly being overcharged and struggling to find redress, so we started asking people more widely about their experiences with their energy companies, and that really brought the cases rolling in. The issue is obviously not limited to my constituency of North East Fife; indeed, it would be strange if it was.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. It is certainly not just in her constituency; it is everywhere. I have a constituent called Jacqueline, who is a pensioner and fell into debt of £140 with OVO Energy, which sent round bailiffs. She broke down in tears and gave them a cheque there and then. Actually, the company was not reading her meter, and she is now £2,500 in debt. She is on a state pension, so she does not know what to do. That kind of callous behaviour by energy companies should not be tolerated. We must do something about it.

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Layla Moran

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the consequences of the decision of the House on 3 November relating to Standards.

First, I want to place on the record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this debate. I also want to record my thanks for the work done by all members of staff in this place.

I must agree with you, Mr Speaker: I was horrified to learn that the Commissioner for Standards had received death threats. That is appalling. No one should receive death threats for doing their job.

The role of Commissioner for Standards provided one of the key ways in which we moved beyond previous scandals which had rocked the House. The role is not political The Commissioner was appointed by the House to do a job, and that is what she has done and continues to do.

The actions of the Government last week have tarnished this House’s reputation. Last week was UK Parliament Week, a time focused on engaging citizens in the work that we do here. Well, Mr Speaker, if I had been tuning into Parliament last week for the first time, I would probably have turned the television right off again.

I have been a Member of this place for less than two years, and most of the time I am proud to have been chosen to represent North East Fife to be able to act for my constituents and to fight their corner. I was proud to do the right thing last week by opposing the Government and voting to uphold the standards procedure. It is hard to be proud to be a Member of Parliament when, as a body, we are all tarnished with the Government’s brush and when in the eyes of the public we are tainted by allegations of sleaze.

The Government’s actions last Wednesday have rightly been condemned across the board. Sir John Major said that

“the way the government handled that was shameful, wrong and unworthy of this or indeed any government.”

Lord Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that the proposed reforms to the Standards Committee were

“deeply at odds with the best traditions of British democracy.”

My inbox and, I am sure, those of others are full. One example of the many questions I have been asked is:

“What gives the Government the right to have a vote to change the process just because it has adversely affected one of their own? This is an appalling message to the wider public.”

My constituent was right: what gives this Government the right to think that they can change the rules when a decision does not suit them, that they can ignore judgments that are not in their favour and that they can whip their own MPs to achieve the outcome they wanted, in violation of the conventions of this House?

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been a distraction from one of the most important sets of debates going on at the moment, at COP26? When our constituents were tuning in to this place, that is where the focus of Parliament should have been. Instead, the focus was on the shenanigans of this Government, and that is the real tragedy here.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. COP is the last-chance saloon for this country and for the planet, and to have such distractions in this place is reprehensible.

British Council

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Layla Moran

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered British Council closures.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The British Council is the oldest and, for a long time, one of the most important cultural institutions in the world. It has had and continues to have enormous influence. I am sure the Minister knows this, and I do not want to use my time to give him a history lesson. However, we are having this debate because the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office seems to have forgotten about the British Council’s value with its refusal to provide financial support, so I will briefly remind him of the British Council’s initial purpose.

Founded in 1934, the British Council was created in response to a changing global stage: the United Kingdom was losing its traditional forms of influence, extreme ideologies were on the rise around the world and there was a global economic crisis. Those problems may not sound unfamiliar to the Minister and others here today as he and his Cabinet colleagues seek to re-establish the UK as a global power outside the EU, respond to extreme ideologies at home and abroad, as we have devastatingly seen over the last few weeks, and tackle the economic and social implications of the pandemic and the climate crisis. Clearly, the British Council remains as relevant today as it has ever been. If the Minister disagrees, I will be interested in hearing him explain that later.

This Government like to talk about us being a global Britain. In fact, the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy earlier this year was named “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”. In the review, we were told the UK would become one of the most influential countries in the world, and a key aspect of this is our role as a soft superpower. The review explicitly highlighted the important work of none other than the British Council, noting that it

“operates in over 100 countries”.

The problem is that the British Council does not. It just cannot. Why? Because, frankly, the Government have prevented it from doing so.

Like many organisations, the British Council has suffered during the pandemic as its commercial operations, which usually provide most of its income, have been severely hit. As of July, teaching revenues were back to only about 50% of pre-pandemic levels, representing a loss of hundreds of millions of pounds over the course of the year. It is predicted that income from commercial operations will not be back to pre-pandemic levels until 2023. That is absolutely devastating.

In a usual year, the British Council can provide an income of several million pounds more than it needs to run its commercial activities, and that surplus is effectively used to subsidise its other work, which is otherwise funded by Government grants. Have the Government tried to help? Yes and no. An immediate shortfall in funding was met through an additional non-official development assistance grant of £26 million, which was very welcome. What was less welcome for the British Council was that most of the additional grant was counterbalanced by a cut in ODA grant funds of £80 million. It is quite literally giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Would she agree that, especially since the broken manifesto pledge on 0.7%, we are beginning to see that this Government’s actions do not match their words? When the Government say they want to be a world superpower, this example of the British Council funding is yet another proof point that what they say and mean is not what they do?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Yes, I agree. I would argue that the integrated review was published at the start of the year and that work was ongoing, but the decision on the Department for International Development was taken before that review was published. That, alongside the cuts to the British Council, demonstrates that the Government are not aligned with the view of global Britain seen by my hon Friend, myself and others.

A series of loans has also been agreed, but on commercial terms, requiring the British Council to submit business plans to be agreed by the FCDO. Ordinarily, as we know, the British Council is incredibly economically successful, but the reality is that the loans have been needed to fill a hole made by the pandemic. Business operations are not currently normal. None the less, business plans were submitted and in effect the loans became contingent on cost-saving measures that needed to be put in place. What do cost savings and less income mean? That does not promise a strong British Council presence in 100 countries. It is not a bolstering of our soft power presence. It means cuts to services and staffing—I met some staff online earlier this week—and cuts to Britain’s presence around the world.

Already we have seen office closures, with more to follow in coming years. Closures span the world from Belgium to the United States and from Australia to South Sudan. They include all the Five Eyes countries. In other countries, cuts mean there will be no staff, with operations happening remotely.

International Covid-19 Response: Innovation and Access to Treatment

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Layla Moran

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I entirely agree with his sentiments. We have seen that those who are on the frontline, those who are marginalised in our society and those from minority backgrounds are often the most impacted, so it is even more important that we consider the treatments and vaccines that are available for them.

The two drugs that have been proven so far to help treat covid-19 are dexamethasone and remdesivir. The entire global stock of remdesivir was bought up by the United States Government during the summer, hence Donald Trump was in a position to receive the drug when he became unwell. What is left of the stock is currently accessible only at a very high price. The manufacturer, Gilead, sells it at almost £2,000 for a five-day course of treatment, yet it is believed that the cost to produce it is £7.

Fortunately, dexamethasone is widely available and a cheaply sourced steroid. If a patient suffering from covid requires ventilation, administering this drug reduces the chance of death by up to a third. That is great news and has greatly improved outcomes for patients who need to be ventilated. But for there to be a chance for that drug to be effective, there must be enough ventilators available for patients who need them, and there must be enough oxygen to supply those ventilators. Again, in some of the most vulnerable places globally, access to those things are very limited. In South Sudan, for example, a report earlier this year stated that there were only four ventilators available in the whole country—four.

This debate is not just about the cost of drugs or vaccines. It is also about the resources, technology and equipment needed to manage a pandemic successfully. Even with easily accessible and cheaper treatments, there is no equality of access internationally. As things stand, we run a serious risk that by 2022 we will inhabit a two-tier planet in terms of the pandemic response.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she share my concern that those parts of the world where people do not have immediate access to healthcare systems also do not have furlough schemes, and people do not have the money to be able to isolate? The public health aspect is just as important as access to medicines.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I entirely agree. Dare I say it, but even the UK’s Prime Minister this week accepted that the isolate part of the test, trace and isolate system is not working. That is largely driven by the fact that people who have an economic need to continue to work will do so if the supports are not available, and that must be true in other parts of the world as well.

As I was saying, the most affluent countries will inevitably benefit, in terms of vaccines, access to treatment, some form of recovery and a return to aspects of day-to-day life, which we so miss in this place and beyond. For the majority of people in this world, that will, arguably, be a limited prospect; it would be a hollow victory indeed if we can get the virus under control while many people around the world continue to suffer. It would be a false victory, too. Let me go back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that I mentioned at the start. In order for a vaccine to be effective, we need to suppress the virus both at home and abroad, because coronavirus does not respect national borders. No one is safe until everyone is safe. That approach has been endorsed by the UK Government. I thank them for recognising that covid-19 medical products need to be treated as global public goods and for making commitments to deliver on that.

Electoral Reform

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Layla Moran

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It seems that debates on potential electoral reform are a bit like buses: wait a long time for a chance to discuss it, and then, with the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill last week, two opportunities come along at once. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Minister on this topic, as I indicated on Second Reading of the Bill last week. I believe that this is the first debate on positive reform to our electoral system in this Chamber since 2016. As we reflect on last year’s general election and the challenges that the UK faces in relation to the covid-19 pandemic, I believe that revisiting this topic and the impact that the current first-past-the-post system has on democracy is valid.

During that Second Reading debate last week, I mentioned a statistic: for every one vote it took to elect an SNP MP at the last election, it took 33 votes to elect a Green one. The Green party polled over 800,000 votes and ended up with only one Member of Parliament: the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The Brexit Party, polling over 600,000 votes, got no MP at all. Its biggest impact as a party was in standing down in seats, effectively preventing those who wish to vote for it in those seats from being able to do so.

I do not want to drown Members in statistics—I know that the Government have been in trouble with the Office for National Statistics recently—but I do want to highlight the following. The Government have an 80-seat majority in this House, but they did not receive the majority of votes—far from it, in fact. They got 43.6% of the votes, but due to first past the post, they now hold 56% of the seats. I do not know what is more remarkable: the fact that the Government have a majority in Parliament, despite not having a majority of votes from this country, or the fact that we have grown so used to this disproportionality that we rarely comment on how remarkable it is.

If Government Members—were they here—to say, “Well, at least the largest party in the Commons is the one with the most votes,” I would agree. After all, in 1951 and 1974, the party with the most votes did not end up with the most seats. The electoral maths is very clear. First past the post does not do a good job at all of representing voters’ preferences or the will of the people, as some like to call it.

One of the arguments in support of first past the post is—to quote a previous Conservative general election slogan—that it provides strong and stable governance. The last 10 years have demonstrated that this is far from the case. We have a broken system. It is unfair, unrepresentative, and undermines the legitimacy of our democracy and, indeed, the UK itself. We often take pride in the fact that this Parliament is the mother of Parliaments, but we should not let our pride in our heritage blind us to the areas in which it needs improvements. We should not uphold tradition at all costs, particularly when it prevents us from making the progressive changes that will have a positive impact on people’s lives, or prevents Members from properly representing their constituents. Every election that we hold under first past the post runs the risk that we end up with a Government who did not win a majority of votes, impacting on the legitimacy of our whole democratic process. This is a scenario that should worry anyone and which we should be acting pre-emptively to avoid.

Although I take pride in our heritage, the reality is that the vast majority of democratic countries have chosen not to follow our system. Exactly the scenario that I have been talking about—the party with the most votes not becoming the Government—happened in New Zealand in 1978 and again in 1981, and it set that country on the road to changing first past the post in 1997. It was abandoned in Ireland, Australia, Malta, South Africa and Cyprus. Across Europe, 40 out of 43 countries carry out elections using some form of proportional representation.

The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, use forms of proportional representation in their elections to those bodies. When we have the chance to start from scratch, first past the post is never anyone’s first choice. Surely now, following two divisive referendums in the past decade—again resulting in winner takes all—and with the challenges facing us going forward, we require a different kind of politics from the adversarial two-party politics that is the natural result of first past the post. Last week, the Prime Minister criticised the Leader of the Opposition for not working in a constructive way, but this is exactly the way in which our system forces politicians to operate—across the Dispatch Box, two sword lengths apart.

As the Scottish National party’s vote is concentrated in the 59 Scottish seats, the situation that first past the post creates there is even more serious. In December, 45% of the vote for the SNP equated to 80% of the seats. The adversarial nature of things becomes even more stark when two parties each claim to be the voice of their people, and I am pleased that the SNP is in agreement with me that we need a more proportional system and we need it to be found soon.

As we seek to recover from the impact of covid-19, other challenges—most crucially, our response to the climate emergency—remain. Such challenges will not be solved by one side or way of thinking. They require co-operation, mutual trust, welcoming a diversity of thinking, and an ability to set aside our differences and work together for the common good.

Some commentators have observed that states with the perceived best response to coronavirus so far are those with women leaders. The underlying factor is that these are countries with proportional systems and a focus on pluralistic decision making, such as New Zealand and Germany. Every single country with more than 40% of female representatives in its legislature has a proportional system. The current system is inhibiting the progress that both the Government and the official Opposition say they want to make.

It is not only our governance that is weakened by first past the post. Our voting system results in the permanent disenfranchisement of millions of voters, creating persistent minorities, and a real and legitimate sense of anger alongside the harm to the regions and the devolved nations. How depressing is it that, for a great number of people in this country, being represented here in this place by someone they actually voted for feels like a treat?

In last week’s debate, many MPs spoke about how much they love their constituencies and the pride that they take in representing them. I have personally enjoyed the tradition of the maiden speech, referring to my constituency and its attractions as well as acknowledging the work of my predecessor. But as Members of Parliament, we do not actually represent our constituencies; we represent the people in it. In my constituency of North East Fife, the majority of people did not vote for me in December. Tactical voting probably played a part in the result, but my job now is to represent everyone in my constituency, and we must acknowledge that many feel unrepresented as a result of our system.

Surely we should all like to be elected on the basis of a positive voter choice, as opposed to being the least worst option on the ballot paper, as is often the case. Surely the proliferation of tactical voting websites and electoral pacts at the last general election suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we elect people to this place. We talk about the collapse of Labour’s red wall without critically asking whether it is right for any party to believe it has the right to any seat or its electorate. We do however comment on the extra attention that these seats and their new Conservative representatives expect to get from the Government. That suggests that, as previously safe Labour seats, where the same party had won every election, people’s votes there were worth very little and the parties could therefore ignore them. Only when a seat becomes marginal does it seem to matter.

As I pointed out last week, it is strange that the Conservative manifesto recognised that votes mattering equally is a “cornerstone of democracy”, yet is blind to the huge disparities in our current system. It was pointed out to me by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that she has more than 20,000 more electors in her constituency than I have in mine, but this unfairness is because our system is based on defining boundaries and areas for a single Member to represent under first past the post. Some of the criteria being set out in relation to boundary changes undermine the arguments for single-Member constituencies by diluting the identified community links that many argue are the main benefit of first past the post and risking further disenfranchisement in an already broken system.

One other promise in the Conservative manifesto was to have a constitution, democracy and rights commission in the first year of the Government. Will the Minister update us on the plans for that commission, including its scope and potential membership? Fair votes are just one spoke on the wheel of reforming our broken politics and there is lots more to be done; I have not touched on the House of Lords or the fact that England needs to follow the reforms of the other devolved nations, including Wales, where, from last week, 16 and 17-year-olds are now eligible to vote. I find it strange that only in England are 16 and 17-year-olds felt to be incapable of exercising their democratic rights.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful speech, at an important time in our democracy. I used to be a teacher and I can say from experience that 16 and 17-year-olds are just as capable of understanding the complexities of the political landscape as anyone else and quite often ask very insightful questions. From her experience as a Scottish MP, does she agree that it is time England followed suit and gave 16 and 17-year-olds the vote?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and entirely agree with her. As I say, only one of our four nations seems to feel that its young people do not have that insight, and we should absolutely be giving them that opportunity.

Countries around the world are moving forward beyond fair votes, with democratic innovations such as citizens’ assemblies or participatory budgeting programmes. We need to look at participatory democracy better empowering local communities and groups. We have seen multiple marches and demonstrations in the past few years, including, most recently, this weekend. People protest when they feel they have no other option in terms of making their voices heard to demand change. It is tempting to be comfortable with the current system—after all, every Member here has benefited from first past the post—and I understand the reverence in which Members hold this place, but we best revere it when we acknowledge that its practices are letting down the very people who elected us to represent them. We should not let warm feelings get in the way of cold, hard reality.