Column Number: 151
Standing Committee B
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
†Mr. Edward O’Hara, Derek Conway
†Bellingham, Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk) (Con)
†Betts, Mr. Clive (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab)
†Binley, Mr. Brian (Northampton, South) (Con)
†Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)
†Cairns, David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)
†Devine, Mr. Jim (Livingston) (Lab)
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)
†Harman, Ms Harriet (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs)
†Heath, Mr. David (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
†Johnson, Ms Diana R. (Kingston upon Hull, North) (Lab)
†Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab)
†Laing, Mrs. Eleanor (Epping Forest) (Con)
†Linton, Martin (Battersea) (Lab)
†McGovern, Mr. Jim (Dundee, West) (Lab)
†Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD)
†Robinson, Mr. Peter (Belfast, East) (DUP)
†Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Geoffrey Farrar, Matthew Whittaker, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 153
Tuesday 22 November 2005
(Morning)
[Mr. Edward O’Hara in the Chair]
Schedule 1
Amendments
10.30 am
Ms Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, North) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 28, in schedule 1, page 82, line 9, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 29, in schedule 1, page 82, line 21, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.
Amendment No. 27, in schedule 1, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
‘113 (1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 is amended as follows—
(2) In section 1(5) (extension of the parlimentary franchise), for “18” substitute “16”,
(3) In section 3(8)(a) (extension of the franchise for European Parliamentary elections), for “18” substitute “16”.’.
New clause 2—Minimum age of voting—
‘(1) In section 1 of the 1983 Act (parliamentary electors), for subsection (d) substitute—“(d) is of voting age (that is, 16 years or over)”.
(2) In section 2 of the 1983 Act (local government electors), for subsection (d) substitute—“(d) is of voting age (that is, 16 years or over)”.
(3) In paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (c.2), for “18” substitute “16”.’.
Ms Johnson: The amendments would bring the voting age down from 18 to 16. They give us the opportunity to consider why young people should not have the vote at the age of 16. It is argued that young people are not interested in voting, do not have the capacity to vote and are too innocent and naive about the world of politics; they are also told that others know better than they do about the issues that concern them. Those points were all made in the previous century when discussing votes for women, and it will be interesting to consider the modern parallel.
The Committee has spent many hours discussing how best to encourage the population to participate and engage in our democratic process. The turnout in the general election in May was only 61 per cent.
Column Number: 154
However, turnout among 18 to 34-year-olds was a mere 37 per cent. That is cause for concern. On Second Reading I was heartened to hear the Minister say, about voting at the age of 16, that nothing was ruled out and that she was open-minded about the way forward.
I remind the Committee that article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which the United Kingdom ratified in 1991, sets out clear participation rights for children and young people, encouraging them to give their views and to participate fully in decision making.
In 2003, the Electoral Commission undertook research on voting at 16; it also considered the age of candidature, which is currently 21. In 2004, the commission said:
“There appears to be insufficient current justification for a change to the voting age at the present time”,
and recommended a further review in five or seven years. It would be a great disappointment if it were to take another five or seven years to give voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Bill’s provision dropping the age of candidacy from 21 to 18 has attracted cross-party support.
In the late 1960s, the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18. A number of people who now are distinguished parliamentarians would have been disfranchised if the voting age had been 21, including Gordon Brown, Simon Hughes and John Redwood— [Laughter.]
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): You have just lost your argument.
Ms Johnson: I am sure that everyone would like at least one of those parliamentarians to have participated in the electoral process.
I now move on to the main question: why should 16 and 17-year-olds have the vote? Over the past five years, citizenship classes have been introduced in all secondary schools. As a result, our 16-year-olds are now equipped with the knowledge and the skills to vote. Having reached that stage at the end of their time in secondary school, it seems ridiculous that they should have to wait two more years before being allowed to exercise their democratic choice to select a politician to represent them.
Now that we have citizenship classes, we ought to follow them through and give young people the vote once they have finished at secondary school. David Bell, the chief inspector of schools said in a recent democratic citizenship lecture that citizenship education was a key focus in one in five schools. The result is that young people are informed, engaged and ready to vote. That is very telling, and we need to take account of it.
I turn next to the matter of good voting habits. It is clear from research by the Social Market Foundation that those who vote at the age of 18 are more likely to continue voting for the rest of their lives. It found a link between the age at which people are first able to vote and their inclination to vote more often. People who turn 18 in the year leading up to a general election are significantly more likely to vote than those who
Column Number: 155
turn 18 the year after a general election; the latter have to wait for up to five years before exercising their vote. For example, those who were 17 in 1992 had to wait until 1997, when they were 23, to vote. In the 2001 election, when they were 27, they were tracked to see what they did, and only 49 per cent. of them bothered to vote. By comparison, 65 per cent. of those who had been able to vote in 1992, and who therefore voted again in 1997, also voted in 2001. The research demonstrates that those who vote young vote often. Although lowering the voting age will not erase the birthday lottery, it will ensure that everyone can participate in a general election by the time they turn 21. That will establish healthy electoral practices, which I am sure we all support.
On the Floor of the House yesterday, I mentioned the European experience of voting at 16 and 17. I was vociferously heckled from one side of the Chamber because I managed to incorporate young people and Europe in the same sentence, which got some hon. Members rather excited. In municipal elections in Germany, 16 and 17-year-olds are allowed to vote, and the turnout for that age group is higher than for older age groups, such as those aged 24 to 35. In local elections in Austria, the turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds reaches 90 per cent. To return to the point with which I started, turnout among our younger voters is currently 37 per cent., and the possibility that we could increase that figure to 90 per cent. by incorporating 16 and 17-year-olds certainly gives us pause for thought.
Numerous organisations have actively supported such proposals for a number of years, including Barnardo’s, the British Youth Council, the Children’s Society, the Electoral Reform Society, Girlguiding UK, the Local Government Information Unit and many more. It is unfortunate that when the Electoral Commission considered the issue in 2003, it did not take too much account of the wealth of research that had been carried out in the previous 10 or 20 years.
Most importantly, organisations run for and by young people strongly support reducing the voting age to 16. The British Youth Council has been campaigning on the issue for more than two decades. Reducing the voting age has also been one of the main manifesto commitments of the UK Youth Parliament since it was established in 2000.
Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): My hon. Friend mentions the UK Youth Parliament. Would she care to discuss the percentage turnout figures for voting for that Parliament?
Ms Johnson: I am not sure that I have the figures to hand, but there is a clear view in the Youth Parliament that exercising the right to vote in municipal and general elections is the way forward. Young people might feel that the Youth Parliament is a sop to them, and that they want engagement in the country’s democratic process. Therefore, the voting figures might not be that high, which is what I think my hon. Friend is suggesting. However, that is no reason not to support the arguments for introducing the right to vote in local, general and other elections.
Column Number: 156
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): The hon. Lady is making an eloquent case. The respect agenda is shared by all political parties, so is there any empirical evidence to show that young people who have the opportunity to vote behave in a more socially responsible way? In other words, does the evidence that she cited from Austria and Germany show that young people behave with more civic responsibility because they have been given the opportunity to vote?
Ms Johnson: There is certainly something in that argument. Young people are already engaged in lots of civic activity, and the various pathfinders around the country encourage them to engage with their local communities and take a leadership role in them. If we are asking them to do that, it is only right and proper that they should be able to exercise the right to vote.
Let me briefly put the issue in context. The voting age has already been reduced to 16 in eight countries around the world—countries with various types of Government, such as referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Croatia, Cuba, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Serbia and Montenegro, and Slovenia. Iran has a voting age of 15 and, as I mentioned, in Germany and Austria 17-year-olds can vote in municipal elections.
I believe that the question is not whether young people will be allowed to vote at 16 and 17, but when that will be the case. I started by saying that over the years, there have been arguments about why women should be allowed to vote and why the voting age should be lowered from 21 to 18. I am certain that even if a provision to lower the voting age is not incorporated in this Bill—I am convinced that we will have an interesting debate about that in a few moments—we will talk about the issue again in future. I believe that the voting age will be lowered to 16.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Lady on tabling the amendment and on her presentation of the case for it. She covered the ground admirably, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments that she adduced.
It was useful to have a foretaste or trailer for this debate in the Chamber yesterday, when there were questions to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. It was clear from those exchanges, brief as they were, that there is support for the proposal among hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are also some who will never support a lowering of the voting age. Indeed, the impression given is that they would rather like the voting age to be considerably raised—and perhaps the franchise to be reduced as far as possible, as well.
I personally believe that there is a strong argument for a common age of majority. There are different views about what a common age of majority should be, but my party’s policy is that the voting age should be 16. The hon. Lady set out some of the arguments for that. I note that attitudes to age, maturity and discernment have changed over the course of history. We have already debated lowering the age for parliamentary candidacy from the age set in 1695 to 18. You will recall, Mr. O’Hara, that I mentioned the
Column Number: 157
heading of the paragraph in the 1695 Act that talked about “infancy” extending until the age of 20. Few people now would perceive a 20-year-old as an infant, yet in 1695 that was clearly the case. When talking about the age at which people can make an informed choice, we must consider the environment in which we are living and the other choices that people are required to make at particular ages.
If the only argument against lowering the voting age is that some 16-year-olds are not sufficiently mature to—[Interruption.]—switch off their phones in Committee, or to display other aspects of mature behaviour, including using the vote sensibly, I have to say that the same argument could be applied to people of any age.
Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): I have switched it off.
10.45 am
Mr. Heath: Some people, even up to the age of 90, will not be sufficiently mature to cast their vote sensibly, but we in this country consider that a universal franchise is appropriate. There is no test of intelligence, maturity or engagement before people are expected to vote. On the other side of the coin, many 16-year-olds are deeply engaged in political issues. Any of us who attend mock elections in schools—in my constituency the Liberal Democrats always win at a canter, but that is beside the point—will know that considerable debate goes on. People are inquiring at that age, and they want to know what the political issues are. Indeed, they are encouraged by the citizenship courses that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) mentioned.
I want to pinpoint one other aspect, which correlates with the point made by the hon. Lady about the first-time voter. There is evidence that people who have a delayed first-time vote do not exercise their vote in future elections, whereas those who have an opportunity to use their vote at an early stage of their majority do so more readily. That is a simple actuarial, statistical fact. The average first-time voter is not 18 but 20. If we have elections at four-year intervals, as the number of people who pass 18 immediately following an election is approximately equal, on a normal distribution, to the number who pass the age of 18 immediately before it, we are making the majority of people wait until they are 20 or older to cast their vote in a general election for the first time. Is that sound, in terms of what we expect from the country?
If we moved the age of voting majority to 16, the average person voting for the first time would be 18 or older. That is simple mathematics. [Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) apparently has difficulty with that, but it is simple.
Column Number: 158
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): It is perfectly simple, but it is not mathematics; it is just arithmetic. It is the use of statistics, which proves absolutely nothing.
Mr. Heath: An interesting distinction: it is not mathematics, just arithmetic, and it proves nothing. On the contrary, it proves that, on the basis of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the average age of a person casting their vote in a general election for the first time would be 18. It is worth bearing in mind that we are disfranchising, for general election purposes, a considerable swathe—a whole cohort—of young people between the ages of 18 and 20, and some between the ages of 18 and 22. I ask the Committee to consider whether that is appropriate in this day and age.
Mr. McGovern: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be one single adult age for Army service, alcohol, gambling and marriage? Should the age of 16 apply to all those, or just to voting?
Mr. Heath: The age for an awful lot of those is 16 at the moment—but let us not get bogged down in that argument, because there is a genuine debate to be held about the right age of majority. I am not speaking for the party here, but personally, I am not necessarily wedded to the view that 16 is the right age of common majority for things such as marriage or serving in the armed forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Cairns): Scrumpy?
Mr. Heath: May I remind the Minister that even under this Government’s licensing laws, the age for consumption of an alcoholic beverage is 14.
David Cairns: Not for the purchase of it.
Mr. Heath: The age for purchase is higher, but for consumption it is lower. Fourteen is the legal age for consumption under supervision, so let us not have any such nonsense.
This is a serious argument. There are no easy rights and wrongs, and no one should pretend that there are. We will do the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North a disservice if we reduce the argument to caricature. It is a serious argument, which we need to have.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) will have an early-day motion on precisely this subject a week today. That will be valuable.
Dr. Pugh: A ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Heath: I beg hon. Members’ pardon; it is a ten-minute Bill. That will test the opinion of the House, at least in the initial stages. The hon. Lady’s amendment is worthy of consideration by this Committee, and on the Floor of the House on Report.
Column Number: 159
Dr. Pugh: My hon. Friend mentioned citizenship. It is generally accepted that according to inspectors of schools, citizenship is not particularly well taught and is sometimes forced out of the curriculum by more pressing considerations. Does he not agree that in most schools citizenship would be taken very seriously and extraordinarily well taught if there were any danger of pupils going out and voting?
Mr. Heath: I would like to think that that would be the case; my hon. Friend makes an important point. But allowing people to vote as an extension of the curriculum is not a sufficient argument in itself. The wider societal question concerns the stage at which we expect people to be—to use the new Labour term—stakeholders in our society. To be a stakeholder in a society means to pay taxes, to engage in the world of work and to do a number of things that a child is not allowed to do. Some would argue strongly that it also means to exercise the franchise—to vote. That is an argument that we need to have, and I hope that I have outlined my party’s position.
Mrs. Laing: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has introduced the amendment, as it allows us to consider this matter. I was pretty sure that I disagreed with her before I came to the debate this morning, but she made some very good points. However, having listened to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I am now convinced that I oppose the amendment.
Using arithmetic to show the average age at which people first cast their vote is meaningless. The hon. Lady’s argument about tracking, and the difference between people who turn 18 in the year of a general election and those who become 18 just after one, is interesting but it, too, is meaningless. If people wish to exercise the right to vote and to take part in the democratic process they will do so, and if they do not wish to do so because they have something else more important to do, they will not, whatever their age. I am unconvinced that all that makes any difference.
I think that I was 22 the first time I voted, because it just happened that way. However, in that year there were five elections. Or perhaps I was younger than 22 after all—[Interruption.] There is nothing wrong with my arithmetic; I just wish to deny that I was right about the year when I became 18, because it seems such a ridiculously long time ago. In one year there were four serious elections, including a referendum on devolution, which gave me my first opportunity to vote. Having had to wait a long time did not put me off voting, or politics. I do not believe that people who desire to take part in the democratic process will be influenced one way or the other by the year in which they cast their first vote. The statistics are interesting, but the argument does not make sense.
There is a good reason for the age of majority being 18. That is the age at which maturity is reached in many ways. It is also, importantly, the age at which our society considers that people should have the responsibility of voting. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke of giving rights to 16-year-olds. However, we should also consider the
Column Number: 160
question of giving them responsibility. Voting and taking part in the democratic process should not be entered into lightly. It is a serious responsibility, especially if one votes the wrong way.
We already give an awful lot of responsibility to 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. To an extent, they should be given a bit of breathing space in the growing up and maturing process, and should not have all that responsibility thrust upon them at 16. That is not to say that people of 14, 15 and 16 are not engaged with politics, the political process and debate. In my constituency, I organise a schools debating competition that is extremely popular and well attended, and produces debates of high standards in which 14 to 18-year-olds give extremely good speeches, learn the art of debating and become engaged in the political process. I have seen many such people grow from 14 and 15-year-olds who are mildly interested in such matters to 18-year-olds who engage in serious political debate, many of whom voted for me in the last election when they reached 18. Of course, many of them did not, but that is their right when they reach the age of majority: to decide how to vote.
There is a big difference between teaching citizenship and engaging young people in the political and democratic process, and in the process of using reasoning and argument to come to a conclusion. I wish that many Members of this House had learned that ability before—or even after—they became Members of Parliament, never mind at 16. Many have, but many have not.
The 16-year-olds whom I have observed in my constituency will be fully engaged in such matters later, but there is no good reason to thrust that responsibility on them at 16. The hon. Lady’s argument about when women were allowed the vote does not apply, because 16-year-olds will become 18-year-olds in due course—a prospect that did not apply to other disfranchised groups, such as women and some other sections of society. Disfranchisement was forever for such groups, but that is not the case with 16-year-olds, who will reach the age of 18 and of majority later, and get the responsibility of voting. There is no need to thrust that responsibility on 16-year-olds.
David Cairns: Was that arithmetic or maths?
Mr. Devine: Sums.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): We should not decide this debate on the basis of whatever the distinction is between mathematics and arithmetic. Perhaps it has more to do with biology.
Mrs. Laing: Clearly the Committee does not understand the difference between mathematics and arithmetic. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with me—because in the Scottish education system there are entirely different exam papers for arithmetic and mathematics. Arithmetic is much easier than mathematics; it is simply about the relationship between numbers, whereas mathematics is a much more complicated process and concept.
Column Number: 161
Mr. Devine: What about sums?
The Chairman: The distinction is relevant, but not worthy of examination.
11 am
Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. That is why I said that the decision should not be taken on the distinction between mathematics and arithmetic.
In case any hon. Member has the notion that my opposition to allowing access to the electoral franchise at 16 might be due to the demographics of Northern Ireland, and the idea that a united Ireland might thereby come about two years earlier, I should mention that there are some good party political reasons why I might support such an age change. We have the largest youth organisation and university associations of any of the Northern Ireland political parties, and more young people come to our meetings. Our party allows associate membership at 16 and we prepare people for the day when they become eligible to vote.
The approach that has been taken to changing the voting age has implied that this is an exact science, and that on reaching one’s 18th birthday a light suddenly comes on, so that one is prepared, mature and able to vote. The truth is that there are many people who would, at 16, be better prepared to vote than others aged 18 or over. The question, therefore, is what is broadly true of people at that age.
During election times, children often come to the door when I call at houses, because the parents are too busy watching television; having talked to both the children and the parents, I often find that the children often have a better idea of politics. However, although children are growing up and maturing faster, and have more insight into political issues, it is not just age that matters, but experience. People can be taught in school and have citizenship classes. They can, as they often do, have visits from politicians, and they can understand the issues very well. However, something more is needed.
I wonder how many of us hold the same views now that we held at 16. Experience of life often changes our opinions. Some people have a sense of responsibility at 16 and some do not; there is a balance. Despite the fact that people are maturing earlier, I expect that political maturity does not run parallel to maturity in other human activities. The House needs to take into account the fact that people are taking major decisions when they vote in elections. They affect the future of the nation. Therefore, we need a good case for changing the voting age from 18 to 16. The case has not yet been made.
Time is very much on the side of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. The trend will be for people to mature politically at a younger age. However, before we decide to put people aged 16 on the electoral register, from which we take people for jury service, perhaps we should consider how many people would like their future to be decided by a jury
Column Number: 162
of 16-year-olds, whose seriousness about some of the matters in question might not be what those in court would expect.
|
