Electoral Administration Bill

I expected this to be an interesting debate with very different views expressed, and, indeed, it has been. There has been a good deal of argument against us. However, of the speeches made on this group—I am sure my noble friends will not object to my saying this—the one I found most impressive was that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is someone who, unlike us, comes from a party which does not have a policy of reducing the age of voting to 16. Many arguments have been put forward in the other direction. I suspect strongly that the same arguments were put forward a few years ago when the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18. I do not think that anybody would suggest for a moment that it should be put up again. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, put that into his amendment. From what he said, it is clearly not something which he is proposing. Of course, that does not prove my case because at some age, clearly, it would be wholly inappropriate to give children or young people the vote. I would describe somebody who has reached the age of 16 as being a young person rather than a child. That is very much the general view now. I believe there is a significant reaching of a stage at the age of 16. By that time, puberty, if not complete, is certainly well advanced. There is a recognition that the protection given to children is no longer appropriate or necessary in many respects. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, came up with the ingenious argument that the various grounds being put forward for reducing the voting age to 16 are irrelevant because they all refer to cases where young people are selected by others. That may, I suppose, apply to the case of directorships, although even there it may be that a 16 year-old could not only start a company but also appoint himself as a director. On looking at the responsibilities that young people of 16 are allowed to accept, they are trusted in many ways to look after their own lives. It is true that marriage under the age of 18 requires the magistrate’s consent if parents refuse it, but that is not something much relied on these days. One hardly ever hears of cases where that happens. If one considers a young person’s ability to take a decision about their medical treatment or sexual activity, that shows that that is the age at which childhood ceases and they become something more—a young person. Therefore, it is not only logical but appropriate to say that 16 is the age at which you should be entitled to take a decision about not only your health or sexual activity but how you vote. I cannot say that I am very worried by the prospect of parental bullying. I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Ashton, whether, in retrospect, they now feel that they would have been unfit to vote at the age of 16 or 17, if the opportunity had been offered to them. I suspect that they would not think so. We have now reached a stage at which it is appropriate to reduce the voting age to 16. We will certainly bring the amendment back for further argument when we reach Report. Of course, we have not taken a final decision, but it is very likely that we will press it to a vote to make our position clear. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that, on the basis of the views that we have heard from both the Government and the Conservative Front Bench, it is unlikely that we will be able to send it back to the House of Commons, but we will do our best. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 97A not moved.] Clause 21 [Minimum age]: