Electoral Administration Bill

I should declare an interest as the mother of a 16 year-old son. I have a completely different take on the idea of parental bullying because I think that the bullying comes the other way. It is interesting that the two noble Baronesses in the Committee—I appreciate that they are aided by some Members of the Committee who happen to be men—stand shoulder to shoulder in rejecting the amendment. I think that I can speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, when I say that she and I do not accept the analogy between women and children in this context. I shall try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. When one considers lowering the voting age to 16, one has to ask: in order to do what? I am not suggesting for a second that this has been said in the Committee today, but it has certainly been said in other places, that one of the advantages of lowering the voting age would be to increase the numbers voting. Of course, we would probably decrease the percentage of the electorate who would vote. I am sure Members of the Committee agree with me that that is not a proposition that anyone could accept because, indeed, there is an issue of voter turnout—there is a particular issue with regard to 18 to 24 year-olds—which we must address by means other than seeking to expand the numbers of people who can vote, thereby increasing the specific numbers. Members of the Committee have said that those young people might be more likely to carry on voting. I accept that it is important that young people get the opportunity to understand democracy. Indeed, Members of the Committee have paid tribute to the work that this Government have done on the citizenship agenda. When I had responsibility for that at the Department for Education and Skills, I was fairly knocked out by some of the things that were going on in schools. I refer to school councils where young people can participate and learn about democracy. However, I reject the principle that seems to lie behind the measure that there is a two-year dearth from when you end citizenship education at 16 to when you start voting at 18, during which you have no opportunity to be involved in your community. I do not think that is true. We always have to invite, and invest in, young people’s involvement. However, I do not think that you can make the leap of saying that someone involved in citizenship education has to be able to vote at 16, and that they will lose the will to vote by the time they reach the age of 18 if they are not. I recognise the points that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made on the vulnerability of children, which link to the issues raised about young people’s responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed the matter for me in calling them children. Although I live with a 16 year-old who will bitterly resent this when he reads it—and a 14 year-old who will resent it even more—they are children. There is a question in my mind about ensuring that children are allowed to develop their understanding and knowledge of democracy while not being expected necessarily to participate fully as voters, which I personally think goes alongside what we have in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which states that the age of majority is 18 for certain purposes. This is a good example of such a purpose. I do not accept that this is about the only way that young people can be involved as citizens in our country and that by letting them vote at 16 we necessarily capture them to vote later. I accept that there is a lot of work to be done in education for young people and ensuring that they participate in other ways in their community. I do not think that there is enough evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, to suggest that we have reached a conclusion which is so overwhelming that we should take advantage of it. This is something that we need to return to and to keep under review because it is an important issue. It is important to ensure that we recognise that we have young people who need to be involved in communities. I do not consider that attitude to be in the least bit patronising—or matronising, as I prefer. I think it is realistic to recognise that 16 year-olds are 16 year-olds who need to participate properly, and at 18 they vote.