7.20 pm
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab): On the day that Scottish Labour has set out how we will enhance the vow in our home rule Bill if and when we are elected, it is fitting that we are debating, for the first time since the Smith agreement, powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament.
It is worth reminding the House of how we have reached this stage. The result of the referendum on 18 September was emphatic. The call for change was equally significant, and it was a call that we heard. Labour promised people safer, faster, better change with a no vote in September, and that is exactly what we have delivered. The cross-party Smith agreement reached
2 Feb 2015 : Column 86
just 10 weeks after the referendum vote was the first time that all Scotland’s parties had reached that degree of consensus on new powers for Scotland. The Smith agreement gives Scotland modern home rule, with extensive new powers over jobs, tax and welfare, and that is what we will legislate for if we are in power after May. Today’s discussion and agreement of this order should be another demonstration to the people of Scotland that the vow has been delivered and that we are standing true to the word we gave during the referendum campaign. The timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has been met.
As the Secretary of State explained, the order deals specifically with the power that was promised in section 25 of the final report of the Smith commission—namely, that control of the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Last year, Labour Members called for these powers to be brought forward quickly, and we are pleased that the Government are now doing so. As the Secretary of State said, it is obviously for the Scottish Parliament then to determine what the franchise should be, but it is clear that all the parties at Holyrood will support the lowering of the voting age to 16. It is right that we are debating these powers today so that we can give a guarantee that 16-and-17 year olds will be able to vote in the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government will move to ensure that those same young people are able to vote a year later in Scottish local government elections.
Too many people, too often, are cynical about our young people, but the referendum campaign in Scotland showed many of them at their very best, engaging with politics, getting involved in the campaign, and participating in record numbers in debates in schools and college across Scotland. I am sure that many hon. Members can pay tribute to the debates held in their constituencies during the referendum campaign. The young people in my constituency of Glasgow East were a great credit to the referendum campaign and, in particular, to their schools. They organised very balanced debates to inform themselves and encourage participation.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The hon. Lady is obviously going to congratulate the Scottish Government on introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds; I am sure she is getting round to that. What I remember about the debate on giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds is a lot of whingeing and whining by Labour Members telling the Scottish Government that it could not be done and finding all sorts of reasons why it would not be possible. Does she not recall any of that?
Margaret Curran: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who perhaps has the greatest expertise in whingeing, will join me in paying tribute to those involved in the Smith commission for bringing this forward. If we all agree on something, let us for once stress the fact and say, “Isn’t it good that we’re all agreed on this progress for Scotland?”
Research by the Electoral Commission has shown that about 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the referendum—a very high proportion considering that it was the first vote to which they were entitled. I hope
2 Feb 2015 : Column 87
that we can speak positively about those young people and be constructive in our comments as we welcome this landmark for 16 and 17-year-olds in our country. I recognise the positive energy and enthusiasm that those young people brought to the referendum and can now, I hope, bring to Scottish elections as well. It does not matter whether they voted yes or no; what matters is that they participated, and that is something we want to encourage. What matters is that with this order, and with the actions that the Scottish Parliament will take, we can strengthen our democracy and increase democratic participation.
The changes that we are discussing have very broad support in Scotland. They have been welcomed by a large body of pressure groups and organisations representing young people, including the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on children and young people, Young Scot, LGBT Youth Scotland, Children in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. As Young Scot said in its statement calling for votes at 16 in Scotland,
“Scotland will be viewed as a world leader by fully engaging and empowering its 16 and 17 year olds as fully franchised citizens active in the political life of the country.”
As has been the case in the past, Scotland can lead the way on this change and show that our young people have what it takes to engage in our democratic process. However, as was indicated earlier, Labour Members would go much further. The order meets the agreement made in the Smith commission on votes at 16 and 17 in Scotland, but we believe that there should not be two-tier voting across the country. As the Secretary of State said in response to questions from my hon. Friends, it is reasonable to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) did at Prime Minister’s questions, when we will get the opportunity to pursue this policy. If the Prime Minister indicated that there would be a vote, it is reasonable for the Government to say when it is likely to take place. If our young people in Scotland have what it takes to decide the future of their country in the referendum and, soon, the shape of the Scottish Government, they also have what it takes to decide the shape of the UK Government. That is why Labour would extend the franchise in all UK elections so that 16 and 17-year-olds can also vote in general elections. Taking a lead from Scotland, Labour would extend votes at 16 and 17 to the other devolved Administrations, English local government and the London Assembly, truly empowering young people across the United Kingdom. It is about time that our young people were given a voice, regardless of the type of election or where in this country they live. As I said, the Prime Minister was recently forced to concede that.
It is welcome that the Secretary of State has brought forward this order and that we are delivering these powers ahead of the general election, honouring the commitment given during the Smith agreement. I have raised with him several times the possibility of extending this principle to other areas of the Smith agreement, notably the devolution of employability support. I again push him to listen to Labour’s calls for immediate devolution in that regard and to bring an order to this House to achieve that. He has shown his competence in introducing this order; perhaps he could extend that to
2 Feb 2015 : Column 88
an order on employability support. Flattery does not seem to be having any impact on him, but it was worth a try, and I will keep trying. Devolving these powers should not wait until after the election. They are another step towards delivering the modern home rule that was at the heart of the Smith agreement. That is indeed the first step in delivering more powers for Scotland. Labour’s home rule Bill, which we intend to introduce in the first 100 days of the next Labour Government, will give Scotland the full powers it needs, as agreed during the Smith commission and announced today. We thank the Secretary of State for bringing this order before the House today, and give it our full support.
7.29 pm
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): I welcome this order which will deliver on commitments made in the Smith commission. Its timeliness will allow it to be implemented effectively, efficiently, and in time for the Scottish election and future local government elections, and in particular it will allow us to get the register right.
I wish to reinforce the experience of having 16-year-olds involved in the political system. The referendum did that in a practical sense, but for years many Members of the House have been going into schools and recognising that 16-year-olds have an informed and enthused approach to the political system and engagement with politicians. An important aspect of engaging people at 16 is that they are in a stable environment such as school or college, and many are still in a home environment. There is therefore a chance of getting them registered and involved in the electoral system before they get into the flux and change of life that goes with the upheaval of moving on from school and towards the rest of their lives. If we can engage people at 16, they are more likely to stay engaged with the voting system throughout their lives.
Many of us criticise short-termism in electoral decision making, but 16-year-olds clearly have the most long-term future in decisions that are made about this country and what is happening. If we can engage with them and get them to think about the future and build on that, we can perhaps take a longer term approach to our voting system. I welcome the order and I hope that the House will see it come to fruition, honouring the Smith commission and delivering votes for 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland.
7.32 pm
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important order, which if approved will ensure that the voices of our young people in Scotland are heard. More specifically, it will guarantee that the franchise is extended in time for elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, and the Scottish local government elections in 2017.
I welcome the publication of the Smith commission’s Command Paper, which includes provisions for the conduct of Scottish elections to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, I am proud that Scottish Labour’s calls for the change to be fast-tracked will become a reality this evening, and I urge the Scottish Parliament to take swift action to ensure that changes are in place ahead of those elections. It is vital that we build on the energy and momentum created by the
2 Feb 2015 : Column 89
participation of our young people in the independence referendum, and grant the Scottish Parliament power to lower the voting age to 16.
As I am sure all Members will acknowledge, the level of engagement witnessed among our young people during the referendum is a cause for celebration. More than 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote, and on the day itself many thousands of young Scots made their way to polling stations up and down the country to have their say on the future of their country. Young Scots had a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offered them a real chance of influence. Such levels of participation demonstrate that it is right to enfranchise our young people and lower the voting age to 16. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are more than capable of taking important political decisions. Our young people already contribute much to our society; they have other rights, and a number of obligations are placed on them. It is therefore correct that they should be able to participate in the selection of those who govern them.
I often visit local schools in my constituency, and I am always impressed by how engaged young people are. During the referendum it was evident that our young people were fully involved with the independence debate, carefully examining the implications of both sides of the argument. Young people are informed, politically interested, and fully aware of the world around them. It therefore makes perfect sense to approve the order and grant 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.
The need to lower the voting age is supported by a number of organisations and groups including Barnardo’s, the National Union of Students and the Electoral Reform Society. Lowering the voting age brings with it a number of benefits and can serve to increase engagement—indeed, the Power Commission makes that point:
“Reducing the voting age to sixteen would obviously be one way of reducing the extent of exclusion for many thousands of young people, and of increasing the likelihood of…taking part in political and democratic debate.”
Evidence has shown that someone who votes when they first become eligible is more likely to keep voting for the rest of their life.
I am proud that a future Labour Government will legislate to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK are able to vote in general and local elections. As the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—hopefully soon to become the Secretary of State for Scotland—made clear, Labour will go further, and I am disappointed that the current Tory-led Government do not share that view. Just as it is important that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have their say, it is equally important that other young people across the UK in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are afforded the same opportunity. Lowering the voting age to 16 would strengthen our democracy and open it up to a new generation. I urge all Members to support this order, and hope that it marks the first step in the enfranchisement of all 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK.
7.37 pm
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP):
It is an honour and a pleasure to speak on a subject close to my heart. Lowering the voting age is one of the main reasons I became involved in politics in the first place. I joined the
2 Feb 2015 : Column 90
youth wing of the Scottish National party in 1985, at a time when the Young Scottish Nationalists updated the party’s policy. From then on and until the present day, SNP policy has been that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all democratic elections.
I felt so strongly about the issue that it was the subject of my maiden speech in 2001, and I hope the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) does not mind my reading some of it out:
“Speaking as the youngest Member of the House who represents a Scottish constituency”—
I think the hon. Lady has taken over that responsibility from me—
“I am convinced that one change might help to engender an interest in voting among young people: lowering the voting age to 16. That has the support of Members on both sides of the House and I make the suggestion in the non-partisan hope of boosting democracy.
Does it not strike hon. Members as ludicrous that we can raise and spend tax money levied on 16 and 17-year-olds? Is it not ludicrous that we can pass legislation that affects their working lives and economic well-being? Is it not obscene that we can send young service men and women into hazardous situations where they may give their lives for their country? It is obscene that 16 and 17-year-olds are judged old enough to pay tax, get married or die for their country, but are not granted the equality that enfranchisement brings. As Ministers in this place and in the Scottish Executive consider suggestions for boosting the teaching of civic life and modern studies, would it not help to show 16 and 17-year-olds the relevance of the democratic process if we gave them the vote?”—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 192.]
I also reflected on the fact that the commitment of the SNP to lowering the voting age goes back much further. One of my predecessors who represented Moray, Winnie Ewing, was elected previously in Hamilton in 1967, and she made her maiden speech on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The commitment runs deep in Scotland’s largest party.
It is fantastic that Members on both sides have praised the independence referendum and the involvement of 16 and 17-year-olds, although I have not yet heard Members from other parties acknowledge that they were able to vote because the SNP-led Scottish Government insisted on it. It behoves Members to recognise that as a significant reason why we are at this stage. Perhaps they will think it noteworthy to bring up in their contributions later.
The experience to which hon. Members have attested was reflected in my constituency and, I am sure, in every single part of Scotland. We were invited to take part in debates in schools and sit on panels with young people—I went to Speyside high school, Forres academy and the Elgin youth café. I am sure that Members on both sides could attest to these types of events, and as the referendum drew closer, the level of debate among younger Scots about what the referendum would mean for them, regardless of whether they had made up their minds, was fantastic.
The statistics thus far—there will many more, because several academic studies have yet to report—and early academic feedback are extremely encouraging. The Electoral Commission released a report in December 2014 suggesting that turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%—significantly higher than among some older age groups. Of all respondents, 60% said they would support a measure allowing everyone to vote from the age of 16; and 97% of the 16 and 17-year-olds who reported
2 Feb 2015 : Column 91
having voted said they would vote again in future elections and referendums. This is tremendously encouraging and should give great support to those arguing for a wider franchise.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): We should all applaud the turnout of young voters in the referendum, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty is in encouraging 18 to 25-year-olds to take part in the process?
Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although widening the franchise will make that much easier for future generations, through engagement in schools, through modern studies, and with political parties and local representatives. That will help to join up, in a much more tangible way, the political world with what happens in schools. However, he points out the challenge of those age cohorts who have not had that experience, and we all need to work hard to bridge that gap.
By enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, we can encourage schools to hold political debate and involve democratically elected representatives. Some schools have concerns about managing the process fairly, but it is not beyond the wit of those schools to do so, and as we know—because we attended many of these events—it works. All of us, having gone through the referendum experience, will want to ensure it is not a one-off. That we can do it for Scottish Parliament elections is great; that it will happen for local government elections is fantastic; that it will not happen for Westminster elections is shameful.
I note that there are two Conservative Members in the Chamber. I observe that 58 of the 59 Members from Scotland belong to political parties that support lowering the voting age in Westminster elections, yet it is not happening. It is for Conservative Members to reflect on what message it sends to people in Scotland when yet again decisions are being made, or rather when progress is not being made because there is not a willingness to recognise the democratic wishes of people in Scotland.
It is unimaginable now that we might go back to a situation in which 16 and 17-year-olds could not vote. I shall spare the blushes of some people in Scottish politics, and not quote their words in the run-up to the referendum.
Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend encourages me. I shall give one quote. The Scottish Secretary’s predecessor told the Press Association on 19 February:
“Sixteen and 17-year-olds should be barred from voting in a referendum on independence for Scotland.”
It was inexplicable—now it just sounds ridiculous. Why on earth would he say such a thing? I have no idea. Once we have lowered the voting age, nobody will argue that it was not the sensible thing to do. When this place finally gets round to lowering the voting age for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and the rest of the UK, I shall be all in favour of it. It will play a part in reconnecting younger people in society with the political process, which over time will lead to a reconnection with the whole of society.
2 Feb 2015 : Column 92
Pete Wishart: I am sure my hon. Friend is doing all he can to spare the blushes of our Labour colleagues regarding some of their comments in advance of this order. Does he agree, however, that we now have to work together—it is great that the Labour party has embraced this measure—and ensure that our young people get to vote in all subsequent elections, whether for Holyrood or Westminster?
Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is up to all of us. What will be in the manifestos of the political parties? If the overwhelming majority of Members returned from Scotland are in favour of lowering the voting age, that is what should happen, as should be the case with every other major policy decision.
This is a rare event in the Chamber. Almost all Scotland’s parliamentarians in this place agree on Scotland’s constitutional progress, but we should reflect on the fact that it was not always that way. It is amazing how when one moves beyond the introduction of such a measure, everyone is suddenly in favour of it—even those who only a year or two before were opposed or highly sceptical. I am really pleased that the SNP and the Scottish Government, when given the chance to put their money where their mouth was, delivered on what was promised decades ago—that younger people in Scotland should be able to vote. That should happen in all subsequent elections, for the Scottish Parliament, for local government and for the Westminster Parliament.
7.47 pm
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): It is a privilege to speak in this debate as the chair of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, the organisation within the Labour movement that speaks and campaigns for political and constitutional reform. Labour can trace the origins of its commitment to these great causes back to Keir Hardie more than a century ago. It was he who first called for an elected second Chamber and for a powerful home rule Scottish Parliament through strong devolution. I regret we cannot honour the third of his commitments—his strong desire to see the cause of temperance furthered across the UK—but we will honour every element of his commitment to political reform in this modern Labour movement.
Rarely in this House do debates on statutory instruments range beyond the specific matters they address, but this debate signifies two wider forces shaping the future of these islands. First, devolution and good governance across these islands will be strengthened by the delivery, as promised, of the Smith agreement, of which this draft order is the first legislative stage. Secondly, the rights of citizens across the UK demand a new political and constitutional settlement, including: votes at 16; the replacement of the unelected other place by an elected second Chamber; substantial further devolution within England; and making devolution and human rights protection permanent within our constitutional arrangement. It is increasingly clear that the order must be the first stage in generating a codified constitution for the UK to put all these changes beyond the day-to-day conflict of partisan politics. I shall address each point in turn.
The strength of the devolution settlement, originating in the devolution referendum of 1997 and the original Scotland Act 1998, is clear in this evening’s debate. An
2 Feb 2015 : Column 93
agreement between five of Scotland’s political parties on transferring powers in connection with the franchise in Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, resulting in the devolution of those powers in law within a matter of weeks, will ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in next May’s Scottish Parliament elections and in the council elections in Scotland the year after. We are achieving together the progressive cause of extending the right to vote in these elections to tens of thousands of young people in Scotland. This stands as a further testament to the work of the late Donald Dewar in crafting a devolution settlement capable of evolving and meeting popular demand in Scotland, and we will see much more evidence of that in the weeks following the general election this May.
The incredible enthusiasm and level of engagement by 16 and 17-year-olds in last year’s referendum proved all the doubters wrong, so with this draft order today, the Scottish Parliament will have the power—the full powers—to make full post-16 voting rights a reality in devolved elections. I recall speaking to a young man on the doorstep in Riddrie in my constituency on referendum polling day. He expressed with remarkable insight and knowledge the evidence and beliefs that had motivated him to participate at the age of 17 in his first democratic election. How many more young people will become active in their communities and in wider society and stand for elected office themselves because of their experience in the referendum campaign last year?
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab): Many hon. Members, regardless of political party, have made much of continuing that engagement with young people and getting access to our schools in order to discuss with our young people who are about to be 16 the relevance of politics to their lives. We have seen an awakening among young people, so I encourage each and every Member to carry on with that. I am about to meet 100 young people from Inverclyde schools to discuss such matters on Friday.
Mr Bain: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is a champion of engagement in his own constituency. I hope that will be remembered in Inverclyde in just a few weeks’ time.
All the evidence from Demos and the Electoral Reform Society demonstrates that the earlier young people participate in democracy, the more likely they are to remain voters in the future. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can pay taxes, get married, join the armed forces and act as company directors. It is an absurdity that they have been denied the right to be full members of our vital democratic processes for so long.
This debate reminds us that we have a duty to make it easier for young people to be able to vote, and it is a warning about the effects of the botched introduction of individual voter registration being presided over by this Government. In its present form, it could have the effect of removing the right to vote for thousands of young people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
This is indeed a good day for democracy, but not a perfect one. I hope that most right hon. and hon. Members will not rest until votes at 16 are introduced for elections to this House and for the elected Chamber that must replace the unelected other place. I hope leaders at EU level will show boldness in extending the
2 Feb 2015 : Column 94
franchise at European parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds too, offering hope to those currently suffering the most from low wages and high unemployment due to the problems in the eurozone economy.
The order demonstrates that grass-roots campaigns for political reform can bring change in this House and to our country as a whole. Just as the Chartists campaigned for democratic rights, trade unions campaigned for the enfranchisement of working class people and the suffragettes campaigned for the enfranchisement of women, so today’s order is the further realisation of their ambitions for a society where everyone can participate, and where government, at whatever level, is more responsive and accountable to all the people of this country as a result. The British Youth Council has campaigned tirelessly for votes at 16 for years, and today is the first recognition of the justice of its campaign in parliamentary and local government elections. It will not be the last.
The debate on this order shows that the governance of the British state is changing and that the pace of that change must increase in the coming years, so we must see a constitutional convention to produce a coherent plan for devolution in England, recommend proposals for an elected senate, consider how the role of human rights protection can be strengthened within our constitution and explore how all our governance arrangements can be made permanent in a single constitution, binding us all as citizens of the United Kingdom.
These are changes worth fighting for: a modern democratic constitutional settlement that can reflect our common links, but also our diversity across these islands. Today marks the first element of that change, but it also shows us the potential to see what can be if we have the boldness and courage to act early in the next Parliament.
7.56 pm
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this momentous debate for the young people of Scotland. I am often referred to as a young person in debates such as this because I am the youngest MP in Parliament. I feel increasingly fraudulent about that claim, however, as I must be—now in my 30s—the oldest youngest MP for quite some time! I continue to appreciate being referred to as a young person. [Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for saying that I do not look my age—and I am glad that that will now be on the record for eternity.
Today’s order will devolve the control of the franchise of the Scottish Parliament to its rightful place—the Scottish Parliament. It seems ludicrous now that that was not done at its establishment. There appears to be a consensus among the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Even the Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who had previously said that she was opposed to this move has reportedly, like many others, changed her view. She said that her referendum experience of young voters had changed her mind. I look forward to her Westminster colleagues following suit. Many others previously unsure about the move to lower the voting age now concede that there is no going back after the referendum in Scotland, where we saw our young people thoughtfully and passionately engage in the debate on the future of their country.
2 Feb 2015 : Column 95
As I say, there has been consensus, but I was disappointed by the tone adopted by the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and, in an intervention, for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). They seemed to be trying to seek divisions in the debate when there is cross-party support for the devolution of the power and for votes at 16 in elections for the Scottish Parliament. At the time, some did not agree that young people of 16 or 17 in Scotland should have the vote in the referendum. There will be some examples of that, of course, but my overwhelming recollections of the debate and the conversations people were having at the time was that there was support for votes at 16. There was, however, strong scepticism—even from myself, a long-term supporter of votes at 16—about the SNP’s view that the power should be devolved for the purpose of the referendum when they had not called for the franchise to be devolved previously.
Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is, of course, right about the consensus: we all agree on all this. Surely, however, she could bring herself to acknowledge the fact that it was the Scottish Government who introduced this measure. No Labour Members have mentioned the role of the Scottish Government, and they seem reluctant to say that it was the SNP Scottish Government who introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds first.
Pamela Nash: I welcomed it at the time, and I congratulated the Scottish Government on it. I am happy to do so again tonight, but it was not done on their own—there was cross-party support for it at the time. I welcome the fact that they did it, but there is this overwhelming scepticism about why it had not happened in the past and that over the years of the SNP Government they had not once asked for the devolution of the franchise and the ability to lower the vote to 16. I was disappointed that it took them so long. However, I am happy that the franchise is to be devolved, and that it is the policy of my party to allow votes for 16-year-olds throughout the United Kingdom and not just in Scotland.
Let me say a little about my career before I entered the House. As some may know, I was a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament. At that time, “Votes at 16” was a big campaign. I was very much a part of that campaign, along with the rest of the Youth Parliament, and I am still a keen campaigner today. I remember visiting for the first time, as a Member of the Youth Parliament, a class of 16 and 17-year-olds—who were not much younger than I was—at Calderhead school in Shotts, which is still my constituency. I clearly recall that, when I asked those young people whether they wanted the vote, most of them said that they did not. I have had the same experience several times since, as a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament and also as a Member of this Parliament.
Those young people told me that they did not think they knew enough about politics and current affairs to make the decision, and also felt that many of their peers would not take it seriously. I pointed out to them that I knew people of every age who that might apply to, and that no one was suggesting that 40 and 50-year-olds should not be able to vote on political issues, or should be subjected to a competence test before being able to
2 Feb 2015 : Column 96
do so—and neither should we suggest that. People of all ages should be able to use their knowledge and experience of life to choose who they want to represent them, and in my view 16 and 17-year-olds are no less capable of doing that than those aged 18 and over.
Some people—and I have heard it in this place—use such anecdotes and polls that show that young people do not want the vote at 16 and 17 to say that they should not be given the vote. I would argue that the level of self-awareness among these young people, and their readiness to research, learn and take their votes seriously, suggests that they are more than ready to take on the responsibility of choosing their representatives—and it is a responsibility. We must remember that, and highlight it. We often discuss the right to vote, but it is not just a right; it is a responsibility as well. It is a shame that a third of people of all ages did not vote in the last general election, and I hope that that will change in the next election.
My main reason for campaigning for votes at 16 has already been mentioned by other Members in this debate. Lowering the voting age will ensure that many more young people will still be in full-time education as they prepare to cast their first votes. I hope that young people who are still at school or college will learn about the responsibility that they must take, and about the importance and impact of their votes. I hope that they will be more likely to vote because members of their peer groups will initiate conversations about the upcoming election and encourage them to participate. I agree with others that, in casting the first vote for which they are eligible, they will establish a habit for life.
We often hear about voter apathy, although the Scottish referendum was a recent exception to the rule. In fact, the turnout for the 2010 general election, especially among young people, was higher than the 2005 turnout: it rose from 38.2% to 51.8%. That represents a change in a trend that had lasted for decades. We must nurture the momentum, and encourage young people to participate fully in our electoral system.
I am delighted that we are taking this important step towards giving a vote in next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency and throughout Scotland, and I look forward to the day when that is replicated throughout the United Kingdom.
8.4 pm
Mr Alistair Carmichael: With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a few more comments about the order. I am grateful to the official Opposition for their co-operation.
There has been a remarkable consensus in the House this evening, despite all the efforts of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who did his best to challenge that consensus by violently agreeing with everything that was said by everyone else. It takes a particular skill to sow division by agreeing with everyone else, and that is just one of the reasons for which I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as very special.
I particularly welcome the support of the official Opposition in respect of the order, and, indeed, in respect of the extension of the franchise to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, as one who, like the hon. Member for Moray, has long been a supporter of the extension of the franchise to 16-year-olds—indeed,
2 Feb 2015 : Column 97
I have supported it throughout my political career—let me gently suggest to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) and her colleagues that, when challenging the rest of us about the current position, they may wish to reflect on the fact that they had 13 years to change it when they were in government and I was a Member of Parliament here, but did not do so.
Mr Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman intervened during my opening speech to ask about an extension to those under 16. The order restricts the power to the age of 16, which is an honouring of the Smith commitment. Once the draft clauses have become law, however, full devolution will follow, and the position will be as I described it to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he still wishes to intervene.
Mr Donohoe: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity in giving way. One matter concerns me greatly. We are approaching a general election in May, and the same youngsters who were enabled to vote in the referendum will then be disfranchised. What effect will that have on their future involvement in politics? The point was not made this evening, although I expected it to be.
Mr Carmichael: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. If I had had my way, we would have made the change many years ago throughout the United Kingdom. However, I can only deal with the situation at hand. As I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman and others, the practicalities and the administrative issues are complex and involved. As a consequence, the purpose of the order is restricted, but it allows us to honour the commitments that we have made. I think it is clear from what has been said from Members in all parts of the House that, throughout the United Kingdom, we are on a journey. On a personal level, let me say to the hon. Gentleman and others that, while it is clear that there will be no change before 7 May for all sorts of practical reasons, it is, in my view, unthinkable that franchise for the 2020 election will not include 16 and 17-year-olds. I think that the move in that direction is now irresistible, but it will, of course, be for the House to make the decision on another day.
All Members who spoke described the positive engagement that they had experienced in their constituencies and elsewhere throughout the referendum campaign as a result of the participation of 16 and 17-year-old voters, and that was certainly my experience at the time, in all parts of Scotland and especially in my own constituency. One of the more positive memories that I will take from that campaign is of a packed meeting in Kirkwall town hall, which was addressed by me, by my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Crosby, and by a 15-year-old Orcadian school pupil, Jack Norquoy, who was not even old enough to vote in the referendum. It was both humbling and inspirational to observe that level of engagement and participation. It is, indeed, that level of engagement and participation that has brought us to this point, and it is for that reason that I am immensely proud to invite the House to agree to the order.
2 Feb 2015 : Column 98
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Road Traffic
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014, dated 30 November 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December 2014, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
The House divided:
Ayes 263, Noes 62.
Division No. 145]
[
8.10 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Amess, Sir David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Baker, rh Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, rh Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, rh Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, rh Lynne
Foster, rh Mr Don
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Sir Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lamb, rh Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Sir Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Maude, rh Mr Francis
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McVey, rh Esther
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mordaunt, Penny
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Murray, Sheryll
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Randall, rh Sir John
Reckless, Mark
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Robertson, rh Sir Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, rh John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, rh Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Willott, rh Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Alun Cairns
and
Gavin Barwell
NOES
Anderson, Mr David
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Bayley, Sir Hugh
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blomfield, Paul
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Mr Russell
Burden, Richard
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
David, Wayne
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Durkan, Mark
Flello, Robert
Gapes, Mike
Hamilton, Mr David
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harris, Mr Tom
Hermon, Lady
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Jones, Mr Kevan
Leech, Mr John
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mann, John
McCrea, Dr William
McInnes, Liz
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Mearns, Ian
Miller, Andrew
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Nash, Pamela
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Perkins, Toby
Pound, Stephen
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Sarwar, Anas
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark
Turner, Karl
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wilson, Phil
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Tellers for the Noes:
Julie Hilling
and
Nic Dakin
Question accordingly agreed to.
2 Feb 2015 : Column 99
2 Feb 2015 : Column 100
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Constitutional Law
That the draft Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 December 2014, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Pensions
That the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2014, be approved. —(Damian Hinds.)
The House divided:
Ayes 261, Noes 56.
Division No. 146]
[
8.22 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Sir David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Baker, rh Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, rh Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, rh Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, rh Lynne
Foster, rh Mr Don
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Sir Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lamb, rh Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Sir Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Maude, rh Mr Francis
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McVey, rh Esther
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mordaunt, Penny
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Murray, Sheryll
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Randall, rh Sir John
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Robertson, rh Sir Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, rh John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, rh Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Gavin Barwell
and
Tom Brake
NOES
Anderson, Mr David
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Bayley, Sir Hugh
Betts, Mr Clive
Blomfield, Paul
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Mr Russell
Burden, Richard
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Cunningham, Mr Jim
David, Wayne
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Durkan, Mark
Flello, Robert
Gapes, Mike
Hamilton, Mr David
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harris, Mr Tom
Hermon, Lady
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Jones, Mr Kevan
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mann, John
McInnes, Liz
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Mearns, Ian
Miller, Andrew
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Nash, Pamela
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Perkins, Toby
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Sarwar, Anas
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark
Turner, Karl
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wilson, Phil
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Tellers for the Noes:
Julie Hilling
and
Nic Dakin
Question accordingly agreed to.
2 Feb 2015 : Column 101
2 Feb 2015 : Column 102
2 Feb 2015 : Column 103
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10, 11 and 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Social Security
That the draft Social Security (Penalty as Alternative to Prosecution) (Maximum Amount) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 8 December 2014, be approved.
Criminal Law
That the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Fines on Summary Conviction) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.
2 Feb 2015 : Column 104
Sea Fisheries
That the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 3363), dated 18 December 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 January, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and EU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Illegal Annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13519/14, a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, as regards Title III (with the exception of the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party) and Titles IV, V, VI and VII thereof, as well as the related Annexes and Protocols, No. 1351/2014, Council Regulation (EU) of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No. 692/2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and No. 2014/933/CFSP, Council Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol; supports the Government’s aim of demonstrating flexibility on timing of the provisional application of parts of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, as part of an intense wider effort to deescalate tensions on the ground in Ukraine; encourages the use of the Association Agreement between the EU, its Member States and Ukraine to embed sustainable reform, security and prosperity in Ukraine and the eastern neighbourhood; and supports the Government’s aim of fully implementing its policy of non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol.—(Damian Hinds.)
2 Feb 2015 : Column 105
Birmingham Airport (Flight Path Changes)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Damian Hinds.)
8.33 pm
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con): It is amazing what an Adjournment debate in Parliament can achieve. On Friday, I had a call from the chief executive of Birmingham airport telling me about some significant changes to the plans for new flight paths, but I shall say more on that in due course. The extension of the runway at the airport has necessitated changes to the flight paths under the airspace change proposal.
Birmingham airport has been trialling options for two new flight paths, known as option 5 and option 6, since May last year. On Friday, the airport announced that when the trial concludes on 13 February, a modified version of option 6 will be implemented, to include features of the original noise preferential route. I am glad that the airport has come up with an option that risks the least noise nuisance, although we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route, along with continuous work to improve further the airport services, taking into consideration the nearby communities. I was particularly pleased that the chief executive stated that the airport wished to mimic as closely as possible “the old Hampton turn”, referring to a manoeuvre that minimised the impact of air traffic on the nearby village of Hampton-in-Arden.
However, the overall process of undertaking the flight path trials has been poor, with long-running problems. Back in July last year, I presented a petition here on the Floor of the House that raised my constituents’ concerns about the trials, which I asked the Department to review. There have been many inadequacies in the trials, including aircraft failing to stick to routes correctly and the repeated postponing of the option 6 trial. The local community feels it has not been listened to, particularly in the rejection of its proposal for an option 6a, an alternative flight path that would have minimised noise nuisance. It made detailed submissions to Birmingham airport, highlighting how a departure route that included a turn at altitude could closely replicate the existing noise preferential route and accommodate the extended runway. That option gained a great deal of community support but was rejected by Birmingham airport without any meaningful qualification.
The Civil Aviation Authority was aware of the alternative option that the community came up with but could not force the airport to trial it. After the initial consultation, options 5 and 6 were scheduled for trialling on alternative months beginning in May 2014. The trials were initially intended to last around seven months.
Under option 5, the aircraft would have continued straight ahead on take-off, but that would have affected the residents of Balsall common quite badly. Under option 6, the aircraft were to make a 20 degree turn to the right, once 2.2 nautical miles from the end of the extended runway, but that option directly overflies the village of Barston, with obvious negative consequences for residents there.
Until Friday’s announcement, option 5 had been Birmingham airport’s preferred option. Before the changes to the flight path, aircraft used to turn away from Hampton-in-Arden at a specific distance from the end
2 Feb 2015 : Column 106
of the runway on the noise preferential route—the so-called Hampton turn. Since the runway extension of 450 metres, the airport has said that the Hampton turn could not be replicated; that a turn at a specified distance must be further than 2.2 nautical miles away from the runway because of so-called obstacles. However, when I asked the airport what those obstacles were, it provided me with a list of incomprehensible co-ordinates, and I was none the clearer.
In the initial planning application stage for the runway extension, local councillors probed very heavily whether the Hampton turn could be maintained if the extension took place. They were assured that it would form part of the evaluation of options under the separate consultation process for the trials.
The airport's latest announcement of a modified version of option 6 should replicate the Hampton turn more closely, and I welcome this indication that the airport is listening to the concerns of the community and hope that progress will continue to be made.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con): My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and defending the quality of life for her constituents who are affected by Birmingham airport. Many of us agree that expansion of Birmingham airport could benefit the area, so it is vital that the airport has a better working relationship with the community to ensure that its views are heard. We welcome expansion of Birmingham airport, but it must be acceptable to her constituents and not impact on their quality of life.
Mrs Spelman: I could not have put the case better myself. My hon. Friend is quite right that the airport enjoyed previously a really good relationship with the surrounding community. It is landlocked on three sides by residential accommodation, and quite dense accommodation at the northerly end of the runway. It is so disappointing that the difficulty with these trials has damaged public trust. The most important thing now is to restore that trust.
I emphasise here that I am not asking the Minister to comment on the specifics of options 5 or 6, because, as ever, a balance needs to be struck—what is beneficial for one community may not be beneficial for another, and I have remained strictly neutral between the two. The aim of the flight path trials has been to measure the actual impact of aircraft noise on relative communities—in Barston and Balsall common—rather than relying on theoretical modelling. That information is being used in submissions to the Civil Aviation Authority and it has informed the airport’s decision.
I want to sketch briefly the timeline of the trials and to highlight some of the issues. The trial of option 5 commenced on 1 May 2014. For technical reasons, it proved very difficult for some aircraft to stick accurately to the initially proposed route for option 6, with accuracy as low as 49% on the northbound turn, so it had to be withdrawn in June. I wonder whether some of the difficulty with trialling the options could have been avoided with better simulation so that they got it right the first time round.
Once option 6 had been revised, the trials were rescheduled to 13 November, which was, of course, during the winter flight schedule, when fewer aircraft come in and out of the airport. Although the capacity
2 Feb 2015 : Column 107
of winter and summer should not affect the ability to check the range of noise from different types of aircraft, noise monitoring does not measure the effect of repeated disturbance or its cumulative effect.
There were further problems with the programming of area navigation aircraft, which meant that the trial of option 6 did not actually begin in November, as scheduled—or rescheduled. One of the flight coding companies, which airlines employ to keep them up to date with correct flight paths, had not provided airlines with the correct information for the revised option 6. The problem was subsequently corrected, but it was not until 11 December that the trial of option 6 commenced fully.
Although I accept that that may not have been the airport’s fault, the cumulative effect of repeated mistakes calls into question the validity of the trials, and it has been frustrating and damaging to public trust. If you will forgive the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, it rather feels like the airport has adopted a trial-and-error approach to the flight path trials. As I have said, following a meeting between the CAA and Birmingham airport last week, the airport intends to continue using a modified version of option 6 once the trials have finished.
Another issue is that the local communities feel they have not been adequately listened to. It did not help that the airport announced that it would review the membership of the airport consultative committee, which is made up of local representatives, just before the trial. The airport proposed to remove the residents associations, parish councils and civic societies from the main committee and place them in a sub-committee, with only the chair of the sub-committee remaining on the revised airport consultative committee to represent the views of the community. That sidelined the organisations that best served the community’s views. Indeed, as the elected Member of Parliament, I was allowed to attend only as an observer.
As a result of pressure from the council leader, however, the airport has agreed to maintain the groups on the airport consultative committee at least while the trials continue. The airport has also taken other steps to improve community dialogue, including by committing to producing community updates throughout the process.
The local community was supported throughout by Solihull council, which passed a motion in October stating:
“This Council supports fair flight paths for take-off and arrival of aircraft at Birmingham Airport to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on communities. We further welcome the involvement of community representatives both at the Airspace Change Forum while trials continue and through their continuing contribution to the work of the Airport Consultative Committee.”
It was clear that the council did not favour one option over the other.
The debate so far has centred on communities affected by changes to flight paths from runway 15, which is for southbound departures. However, runway 33 departures—which are to the north from Birmingham—have also changed, and they make up 60% of flights. Changes to runway 33 departures have affected a number of my constituents in areas including Castle Bromwich and Marston Green. Due to the extension to the runway, aircraft are rotating earlier and therefore homes in the
2 Feb 2015 : Column 108
village are suffering more noise as aircraft are above ground level earlier on take off and make a departure on a much lower angle. However, I was encouraged to hear the airport chief executive say on Friday that, there too, modifications have been made to option 6, which may help to alleviate that noise nuisance.
In summary, the process of trialling new routes has been poorly done. The impact of the flight path trials has been increased noise pollution and a breakdown in the previously positive relationship between the local community and the airport. I welcome the news that the airport has agreed to consider a modified option 6, but we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route and continuous work further to improve airport services, with consideration given to nearby communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said, the airport is an important attribute and asset of regional and indeed national significance to our country. However, the management of the airport and the adjustments to its expansion in future need to be carried out hand in hand with the community most directly affected by it, and it is important that the re-engagement with the community rebuilds public trust.
8.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak this evening, particularly as the House has just voted to increase the heavy goods vehicle limit to 50 mph, which is very good news for the environment, as trucks operate very efficiently at that speed, for the economy and logistics, and for road safety. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on securing this debate about Birmingham airport’s flight paths. I understand and indeed sympathise with the concerns she has raised on behalf of her constituents, and I would like to thank her for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I had a meeting with her just before Christmas in which she explained to me this complex matter, about which I know she and many of her constituents feel very strongly.
Although this debate has rightly concentrated on the concerns of some of my right hon. Friend’s constituents, we should not ignore the vital contribution made by Birmingham airport to the regional and local economies. The aviation policy framework cited Birmingham airport as an example of an ambitious regional airport, with its ongoing programme to develop more long-haul services that would help boost the west midlands economy and help ease capacity constraints at south-east airports. I was in Birmingham today, alighting at Birmingham International airport, where I was struck by the number of passengers, many with luggage, who got off at the same time as me—obviously they were using that important regional airport.
I am sure that the House welcomed the announcement of a Birmingham service to New York in 2015 and increases to services to Delhi and Dubai. We should also not overlook the inaugural flights from Beijing to Birmingham airport in July and August last year. Those were very significant as the first direct flights from Beijing to a UK regional airport. Taken together, they increase the connectivity with important trading partners that a major city such as Birmingham, and the west midlands region, requires. But if we are to continue to
2 Feb 2015 : Column 109
benefit from a continuing thriving aviation industry in this country, we also need to have an efficient airspace fit for the 21st century. That is a key objective of the Civil Aviation Authority’s future airspace strategy—FAS—which is an ambitious project. Although its prime focus is on the airspace over the south-east, it is a national strategy. FAS is expected to deliver about £180 million a year in savings in respect of fuel, emissions and delays by 2020. I am sure the House will agree that that is a welcome boost to the UK aviation industry and its customers.
A key component of the strategy is the introduction of new performance-based navigation routes with the use of satellite-based navigation rather than ground-based conventional aids. It is a bit like using GPS in a car rather than relying entirely on physical maps and road signs. When introduced, these new performance-based navigation routes enable aircraft to fly more accurately. That can reduce fuel burn and emissions, and enable a significant modernisation of the UK’s controlled airspace network. However, I know from various meetings I have had in the past 12 months with Members of this House that the introduction of these new techniques can have an effect on flight paths. Indeed, flying more accurately can assist in avoiding centres of population but may mean that some smaller communities are overflown more regularly. Such changes are naturally of particular concern in those local communities. For example, the experience my right hon. Friend has described at Birmingham has similar parallels at Gatwick and Heathrow, but it is the situation at Birmingham we are discussing this evening, and I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on developments at that airport.
As a consequence of the runway extension, it was necessary for the airport to develop its proposals in keeping with the requirements from the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the CAA’s airspace change process, as well as the air navigation guidance my Department issued in January 2014. In developing its proposals, the key aim was to replicate, as far as is practicable, the existing departure routes. However, in view of the new departure point on the runway, and the need to comply with all requirements and guidance relating to airspace changes, it was not possible to completely replicate the tracks in this case.
The airport conducted an environmental evaluation of possible options and undertook a consultation with stakeholders, including community representatives, as required by the CAA’s airspace change process. As my right hon. Friend said, the consultation carried out between January and April 2013 saw a high level of community response. During the consultation period, it was clear that although there was some support for the proposals there was significant opposition from specific communities to aspects of them. The airport then took steps to determine whether alternative options could be developed to mitigate some of the concerns raised.
For northbound departures—Birmingham is unusual in not having an east-west runway—the airport favoured option 4, known locally as the Hampton turn, but it could not be consistently followed due to the operational requirements of performance-based navigation. I understand that no further realistic options are available for consideration for that specific flight path. Although there was an initial issue with the track-keeping of some aircraft as they made the first turn, the level of accuracy has improved significantly since the trials began.
2 Feb 2015 : Column 110
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that at a meeting between the CAA and the airport last week, the airport agreed to consider some further corrective design work. The airport hopes that that work will lead to a greater concentration of tracks within the noise preferential route that was consulted on. That should minimise the noise impact for many of her constituents.
For southbound departures, one of the key issues was the earliest point at which aircraft make their first turn. To answer that, the airport commissioned further design work and developed a new option that was subsequently called option 6. That and the previous southbound departure option, option 5, were consulted on in May 2013.
In light of those developments, the CAA took the decision to halt its processing of the airspace change proposal at Birmingham to allow time for trials of options 5 and 6. Unfortunately, as we have heard, a coding error by the airport’s procedure design organisation meant that the onboard codes used to fly option 6 were incorrect. Appreciating that difficulty, the airport decided to trial option 5 and the “wrong” option 6 on a monthly alternating basis for six months until the corrected version of option 6 could be trialled.
The trial started in spring 2014, but it was not until mid-December that all aircraft could fly the revised option 6. The trial of that option is scheduled to complete next week. It is my understanding that in light of the feedback from the trial, including complaint data that seem more favourable this time, the airport is discussing with the CAA the possibility of continuing to operate option 6 after next week. That option can be modified to mimic as far as possible the noise preferential route and, indeed, I have a copy of the letter to which my right hon. Friend referred. The airport would then seek to gain the CAA’s approval for the route to be made permanent.
The final decision will of course be made by the CAA, the UK’s independent airspace regulator, and that will probably happen this autumn. As the House will appreciate from the debate, the subject is pretty complex, but it is worth noting that Birmingham airport has tried to respond proactively to the views expressed by its local community. I was sorry to learn of the concerns about the airport’s consultative committee. It is clearly in the interests of the airport to establish and maintain good relations with those in its local communities, many of whom are also its customers. I appreciate that that is not always easy, but I hope that the airport will listen to the concerns raised tonight and will act on them.
I thank my right hon. Friend again for bringing these concerns to the House and I hope that the aviation industry has learned some lessons from the experience at Birmingham that will help communities at other airports that find themselves in similar circumstances. I applaud my right hon. Friend’s tenacity and commitment to her constituents’ concerns. I would not go so far as to say that she has been a thorn in my side, but she must take the lion’s share of the credit for this solution. If her constituents need a reason to support her in May, this is another example to add to the myriad reasons they already have.