Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 97:"After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—" ““VOTING AGE (1)   The 1983 Act shall be amended as follows— (a)   in subsection (1)(d) of section 1 (parliamentary electors), for ““18”” substitute ““16””; (b)   in subsection (1)(d) of section 2 (local government electors), for ““18”” substitute ““16””. (2)   In paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 4 to the 2000 Act (absent voting in Great Britain), for ““18”” substitute ““16””.”” The noble Lord said: I did not move Amendment No. 96 because it seemed a minor amendment, whereas Amendment No. 97 is a major amendment and I thought it desirable to have proper time to debate it. I recognise that Amendment No. 97 goes somewhat outside the aims of the Bill, introducing a fundamental change into our voting system by reducing the voting age from 18 to 16. That is clearly an important constitutional issue. The policy of reducing the voting age to 16 has been supported and pressed by the Liberal Democrats for some years. We believe that it is a change for which the time has now come. At the age of 16, young people can leave school and get a job, on which they will pay taxes; they can join the Army; they can consent to sexual relationships; they can get married or enter into a civil partnership; consent to or refuse medical treatment; and when the Company Law Reform Bill, now before your Lordships’ House, goes through, they can even be appointed as company directors. Frankly, I was somewhat surprised at that, because it seems to me that being a company director needs more knowledge, judgment and sense of responsibility than voting. From my own experience as a parliamentary candidate, I know that young people in years 12 and 13 are often the sharpest and most challenging audience that it is possible for a candidate to face. I remember an occasion when my Conservative opponent addressed what was then called the sixth form of a secondary school as if they were a bunch of 10 or 12 year-olds, and was almost literally torn to pieces. The young can, and now do, take responsibility for their own lives in many ways. Of course, they do not have the same degree of experience as those of us who are older—in my case, much older—but they make up for it with a willingness to question ideas which are in some cases taken for granted by older people, and their ability to learn more quickly. Anybody who has been the parent of children aged 16 or 17 knows that they are unlikely to vote for a candidate simply because one of their parents has told them to. Furthermore, lowering the voting age will increase the interest of young people—not just 16 and 17 year-olds—in politics. We now have citizenship education in all secondary schools. Having the right to vote will make citizenship education not just theoretical, but real to the students. The vast majority of young people who stay on at school through year 13 will find that they have the right to vote in a local, Scottish or Welsh election before they leave school. Around half of them will have the right to vote at a general election if they continue to be held, as they have in the recent past, at four-year intervals. Voting may even come to be regarded as a minor rite of passage. If we get young people to vote before they reach the age of 18, it is more likely that they will continue to vote after that age. That would help to reduce the appallingly low turnout, particularly in the 18 to 24-year age group, where the turnout at the last election was just over 30 per cent. One of the recommendations of the recently published Power report—from the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—which was well received by the media, was to reduce the voting age to 16. The arguments for doing so are extremely strong; the arguments for not doing so are increasingly thin. As I said, the time for this amendment has come, and I beg to move.