European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-10-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Dick Taverne (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, when the whole question about the voting age came up and the suggestion was made that it should be reduced to 16, I had considerable doubts about it, for the sorts of reasons that have been advanced by a number of people, in quite reasonable speeches, who are opposed to the change However, the fact is that there have been a number of inquiries into this and most also turned out to be very doubtful. First, there was the 2004 commission which qualified its recommendation that the voting age should remain at 18 by saying: "We propose further research on the social and political awareness of those around age 18 with a view to undertaking a further review of the minimum age for electoral participation in the future". Then there was the Power report in 2006 which recommended that the voting age should be lowered to 16, explaining: "Our own experience and evidence suggests that just as with the wider population, when young people are faced with a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offers them a real chance of influence, they do so with enthusiasm and with responsibility" It came to the opposite conclusion to what I had felt earlier, that someone of 16 might not be sufficiently informed or use their vote sufficiently responsibly at 16 Then came the Youth Citizenship Commission of 2007 which did not recommend a reduction of the voting age. It found that there was in fact a majority in favour of lowering the age but it thought the sample was too small, saying: "This is a relatively small and not necessarily representative sample of the population" So there was a diffidence about the commission’s recommendations because of a shortage of evidence. The commission went on to say: "We have found that there is a real evidence gap" However, there is no longer an evidence gap. We have had experience from a very wide sample and everyone has found that people in the lower age group deserve praise for the way they approached their task. They found them very responsible and very keen to get the right information. The general feeling was that this lowering of the voting age had been an enormous success. I think that the Scottish referendum has completely altered the situation because this gap in the evidence which the previous commission spoke about has been filled There is one other consideration which we should take into account. One of the serious consequences of a vote for Brexit in the referendum is that it will almost automatically lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. If Scotland votes for staying and England votes for leaving, I cannot see that there will not be another referendum. One has to consider Scottish reactions very carefully. If I was a young person in Scotland—that would have been some time ago—I would be furious if I was allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum but not in the referendum which is of even greater importance if it involves the whole of one’s future. The same position may obtain in Wales because Wales may well decide as well to lower the voting age. If one really wants to keep the United Kingdom together I do not think one wants to confront young Scottish voters and others in Scotland who will be equally adverse to it. That only increases the chance of the break-up of the United Kingdom. The evidence is now plain that young people act responsibly and that they care about the information; the evidence should suggest that there must be a change in the law.