The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13529, in the name of John Swinney, on the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill.
15:57
I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. This is the final legislative step in the process to give 16 and 17-year-olds a vote permanently in Scottish elections, and I thank everyone who has been involved in getting us to this stage. In particular, the thorough and detailed scrutiny by the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee has been invaluable in shaping this important legislation. I am especially grateful to the convener, the committee members, and the clerks for their constructive and helpful contributions, particularly given the challenging timescales that we have all been working to.
The section 30 order transferring the necessary powers to allow this Parliament to consider whether to lower the voting age came into force on 20 March this year. Less than two weeks later, I introduced the bill and the committee started its examination of our proposals that morning. Members will know the importance of giving electoral registration officers sufficient time to put in place the arrangements to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote next May. That gave us our deadline for getting the legislation in place and, subject to this afternoon’s vote, we will meet that deadline.
In the development of the bill, we have sought detailed views from experts in electoral administration and child protection. We have listened carefully to the range of views expressed and, where it was appropriate to do so, we have amended our proposals accordingly. We have taken on board detailed comments from registration officers and the Electoral Commission on the technical aspects of the bill and sought advice from experts in data protection and child protection to ensure that the bill’s provisions addressed any concerns that were advanced.
We also worked closely with the Cabinet Office to develop a solution allowing young voters to enter their details online in the same way as older voters, which will ensure that the registration process is consistent for all electors and that young people have the same experience as other voters. That co-operation builds on the pragmatic approach that both Governments took to the discussions to agree the detailed terms of the section 30/63 order, which transferred the necessary powers for the Scottish Parliament to lower the voting age. Like the bill, the section 30 order was developed and agreed to a challenging timetable.
At this stage, I place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his officials for the way in which they have assisted us to meet that challenging timetable. It is not often that a narrative of co-operation between our two Administrations is celebrated in this chamber, but let me be the one to celebrate it this afternoon and to acknowledge the co-operation that has existed to enable us to undertake the reform and to do it in a timescale that has enabled electoral registration to be undertaken in the professional and thorough manner that all of us expect and require it to be undertaken.
Although I agree with John Swinney regarding the timescale and the co-operation that has existed, does he agree that there is a regrettable juxtaposition? Although this Parliament will legislate today to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in Scottish elections, it looks as though the United Kingdom Government will resist efforts to give those same 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum.
That is regrettable, but I am trying to be charitable, as is my wont. The experience of enabling 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the independence referendum last September, which has been acknowledged as both an enormous political decision and a political responsibility that was taken immensely seriously by the young people who could vote in it, rather vindicated the strength of the argument to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections. It is a real missed opportunity, on the part of the UK Government, not to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the EU referendum, which, like the independence referendum, is on a matter that is inextricably linked to the future of the country and therefore an issue in which young people will have more than a significant interest.
Continued constructive engagement with all those involved in the process to date has allowed us to progress the bill to a tight timetable, in order to ensure that the legislation will be in place in time to allow details of young voters to be collected during the 2015 household canvass. I thank all those involved for their willingness to engage and to share their knowledge and expertise.
It has been a long-standing policy of this Government to lower the voting age to 16 where we can, and I am pleased to say that that policy now has cross-party support across the chamber. I am delighted to have reached consensus on the principle. Building on that, I have been impressed by the thoughtful, impassioned contributions that young people have made to the debate on the current proposals to extend the franchise permanently. Those contributions have made the case for extending the franchise, and Scotland’s young people can and should be extremely proud of that.
The bill provides a detailed, workable and practical framework that will allow young voters to register for and vote in Scottish elections. As far as possible, we have tried to replicate the effect of the arrangements that were put in place at the referendum. We have taken particular care to ensure that the legislation strikes an appropriate balance between maintaining an effective, secure and transparent electoral registration process, and the clear need to ensure that data on the youngest voters is protected. I believe that the bill before us today achieves that balance.
The majority of the amendments that the Scottish Government lodged at stage 2 were the result of comments from stakeholders. For example, we lodged an amendment to ensure that no date of birth in respect of a 14 or 15-year-old would be printed on a household canvass form. That responded to concerns that were raised by registration officers and the Information Commissioner’s Office, and it strengthens the protection of information on young people.
I am pleased to say that our discussions with the centre for excellence for looked after children in Scotland and Who Cares? Scotland before the bill was introduced have led to the inclusion of a new duty on local authorities to facilitate registration of looked-after children and promote awareness of registration among them. That duty has been extended to include young people in receipt of aftercare and continuing care, as a result of the amendments that Parliament agreed to this afternoon.
The next household canvass, which Scottish electoral registration officers will begin in August, will see young voters being asked to register for Scottish elections for the first time. We have worked closely with the UK Government and the Electoral Commission to ensure that the registration routes for young people—either online or through the use of a paper form—are clear, intelligible and easy to understand. We will continue to work closely with all those involved to ensure that the collection of data on young voters is as efficient and effective as possible, and that the arrangements set out in the bill translate into a workable registration framework.
I would like to return to the issue of political literacy, which has been the subject of much discussion during the bill’s parliamentary passage. Young people in Scotland have shown that they are more than ready to take on the responsibility of voting. I agree whole-heartedly with those in Parliament and elsewhere who have argued that young people deserve to have access to information on political events, and that information should be presented in a balanced and dispassionate manner. Such information will help young people with the choices that they have to make.
Political literacy is, and should be, a normal part of the school experience for young people. The current curriculum for excellence framework ensures that that is the case, by providing a framework for young people to develop political literacy skills through a balanced mixture of learning across the curriculum and through other activities, such as discussions, debates, mock elections and inviting visitors into schools. Education Scotland is in the process of reviewing its political literacy education resources for teachers. They are due for release in September and are designed to bring new and innovative ideas to the teaching of participation in democracy. I welcome the important work that Education Scotland has done on political literacy so far, and look forward to seeing the refreshed guidance when it is published.
During the stage 1 debate, I indicated that I would consider whether the Scottish Government could do anything further in the area. Political literacy is a crucial issue and I am keen that we do everything that we can to get it right for those young people who will vote for the first time May 2016.
I was struck by the contributions that Annabel Goldie and Rob Gibson made during the stage 1 debate on the apparent inconsistency of approach around the country. I am therefore pleased to say that Scottish Government officials will meet interested groups to discuss and agree the best way of achieving greater consistency. I expect those groups to include the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Education Scotland, the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators. If we have all the relevant experts around the table, I am confident that we can agree a way forward that ensures consistency and clarity of approach across Scotland. I will maintain a close interest in the work that is being done in that area to ensure that that happens, and I am keen to ensure that it commands all-party support.
The bill marks the final stage in the process to lower the voting age to 16 in Scottish elections. The engagement of young voters that was witnessed during the referendum, and the thoughtfulness and intelligence with which the debate was conducted, are a testament to Scotland’s young people. I fully support the extension of the franchise, and hope that we will soon see a UK-wide lowering of the voting age.
Presiding Officer, the bill is a moment in the history of Scotland and I am proud that our country will lead the way in engaging young people in our democracy.
I move
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill be passed.
16:07
The bill is notable in that it delivers significant change with minimum fuss and maximum agreement. It has also been delivered quickly, in parliamentary terms. It is only three weeks since we debated the bill at stage 1, and it is only a week since the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee agreed amendments at stage 2 without division. It is less than three months since the bill was introduced to Parliament and less than five months since the power to introduce such a bill was devolved by a section 30 order at Westminster.
That speed reflects a cross-party consensus in support of the principle of votes at 16. It also reflects the shared objective of bringing in the new law in time for the Scottish Parliament elections in May next year. Both aspects are important. It would have been unfortunate to agree the principle but then not to deliver in time for the election.
It is also important to note that a consensus across parties in support of the measure reflects the wider consensus among the people whom the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee invited to offer their views on the bill. All witnesses had something to say—whether on specific aspects in their areas of expertise, or in general endorsement of the principle of extending the franchise. None of them opposed the basic premise, or identified any significant flaw in the way in which Scottish ministers proposed to proceed. Issues that were unclear at the outset were, largely, addressed in ways that allowed the consensus to be maintained.
Thanks are due to the committee clerks and my fellow committee members, who helped to take the bill forward so quickly; to the range of witnesses, who provided such clear and positive evidence; to the electoral registration officers, who ensured that the practical issues were addressed; to the young people who reminded us of the fundamental purposes of the change; and to all the others who have been involved in getting the bill to this point today.
Although the change that will be enacted by the bill is substantial, the bill itself is a modest piece of legislation. It consists of a series of modifications to the Representation of the People Act 1983, and to the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001.
Three of its 12 and a half pages deal with service declarations. Young people who live with parents or guardians in the armed forces, the civil service or the British Council will be enfranchised by that route, up to the date of their 18th birthday. That is important, but not contentious—at least not in the context of the bill. It will be interesting to see whether extending the franchise promotes discussion among, for example, young people who are living in services accommodation overseas, where those from Scotland will have a vote at the age of 16 but those from elsewhere will not. That may add a little extra pressure in support of extending the franchise for United Kingdom and other elections.
I welcome what Mr Swinney had to say about political literacy initiatives; that is a welcome approach. I hope that in pursuit of cross-party support for his initiatives he will report back on progress in achieving agreement among those who are involved in providing education and support for our young people in that area.
Much of the bill is focused on striking the right balance between protecting the privacy of young people and enabling parties and candidates to canvass everyone who is entitled to vote at a given election. With a few amendments at stage 2, that balance has been struck, where privacy clearly comes first until very nearly the age of 16, but inclusion in the process on the same terms as other voters comes for those who will reach 16 before or during the election campaign in question. That is important, and essentially reflects the judgment that because 16 will be the voting age it should also be the point at which some of the protections that are offered to children should be replaced by adult responsibilities.
The bill also provides for young people who, in order to register, must show a local connection other than their residence, and for those who must register anonymously. Those provisions are important to allow vulnerable young people to participate, but with the right level of protection. The issue of awareness among looked-after children and young people who have been looked after and have a right to continuing support has also been addressed.
The bill will alter the franchise only in respect of the age of attainment—it makes an alteration there and there alone. That was what was agreed by the Smith commission, and devolved under the section 30 order in January. As the Deputy First Minister said, that is not contentious.
There will be other potential changes in the franchise, such as that which was mentioned by Alison McInnes: she was right to highlight voting in the context of rehabilitation of offenders, as Elaine Murray also did. Of course, the general power to alter the franchise lies elsewhere. We may return to that issue in the context of penal policy, but the legal constraints are clear.
The bill is brief and to the point, and it commands broad support. It also raises issues that must be acknowledged.
The bill has its roots—in Scottish terms at least—in last year’s referendum campaign, although other countries have had votes at 16 for some time. As has been said, the referendum generated a lot of interest among young people on both sides of the debate; however, it is also important to say that that was true of all age groups in the population.
We will decide at the end of today to reject the argument that young people who are old enough to pay taxes have not lived enough or learned enough to pass judgment on the issues at elections to Parliament or to local councils. It is important that we send out the right signal that we truly are an inclusive Parliament.
Therefore, we should also reject the misguided view that our growing numbers of older voters have forgotten too much or lived too long to have a stake in the future of our country. In passing the bill, we should celebrate the democratic participation of all our citizens: the 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds, the 1 million over-65s and everyone in between. We are extending the franchise precisely because we know, from experience, that democracy works.
For the same reason, we should champion the case for votes at 16 in the referendum on remaining in the European Union, and for making the franchise for that as inclusive as possible.
Scotland has many times led the way in the context of its devolved powers—not least 10 years ago when it took action on smoking in public places. Today, we are leading the way again, and I have no doubt that others will follow that example.
16:14
The stage 3 debate of any bill is a matter of procedural importance, but it is also the case that although some bills are highly contentious, others—for example, this one—are not. This afternoon, we have a bill that is important and uncontroversial, enjoys consensus and has required only technical amendments. None of that should diminish for one moment the significance of what the bill is doing, so it is worth repeating that it represents an important development for our young people and for democracy.
The process that began with the Smith commission agreement and, as the Deputy First Minister indicated, proceeded with co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Scottish Governments—I thank him for his constructive remarks about the Westminster Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland—has enabled the bill to do something important, which is to be passed in time for electoral registration officers to do their job.
It is worth stepping back for a moment to the independence referendum, not just because I liked the result but because there were unsung heroes. We should acknowledge the role of electoral registration officers, the Electoral Commission and schools in securing a considerable level of registration for 16 and 17-year-olds.
Scotland’s individual electoral registration roll-out was delayed so that it would begin from 19 September 2014, later than the rest of the UK, in order to avoid conflict with the referendum. It will be completed by the end of this year. We must continue to monitor the effectiveness of the registration of young people in particular in order for the extension of the franchise to be effective. The Deputy First Minister’s amendments in that respect were welcome.
A number of issues arise from the process. In most cases, a national insurance number is the primary method of verifying identity. For younger voters, the ERO will have to look at local authority education data or request additional identity data from the young person who is seeking registration.
In the stage 1 debate, I touched on the role of schools, to which the Deputy First Minister alluded today. We have long believed that it is important to increase turnout among younger voters—that is the case whether the voting age is set at 16 or 18. However, it is clear that many of the people who will be 16 at the time of the next election are still in school, which means that what we do in education now can and will have immediate effects. I thank the Deputy First Minister for expanding on what he sees as being the role of Education Scotland in that respect.
I would like to use the opportunity that is afforded by Ms Goldie’s discussion of political literacy to reinforce a point that I made earlier, and which Lewis Macdonald mentioned, which is that it is important that that work be undertaken in a way that commands cross-party support in the parliamentary chamber. It is in all of our interests to have a well-informed and dispassionately advised group of young people who are able to form their own views on such matters. We will put in place a process to ensure that that satisfaction can be achieved across political parties.
I hope and anticipate that such cross-party agreement will be possible. I think that everyone is agreed that there is a core job to be done in that regard and that what matters to the young people is that, somehow or other, we pull together the necessary components to do it.
Members will recall that the Scottish Parliament information centre research disclosed divergent approaches to engagement between schools and pupils on the referendum. We in this part of the chamber believe in local autonomy and the autonomy of schools and teachers, but it is not healthy for our democracy to have such variation in approach, depending largely on the local authority’s attitude and where the person happens to live.
Again, members will recall that 25 out of 32 authorities had developed guidance on how headteachers and other staff should approach the referendum. Many took a lead from the guidance documents that were produced by the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and Education Scotland. In some cases, divergence in guidance reflected specific approaches. Although Renfrewshire Council did not permit debates in schools within school hours, there were organised hustings events in the area. That avoided clashes with the examinations diet and ensured that access was available to young voters. Approaches differed with regard to whether debates with outside speakers were encouraged, as well as to mock votes. There were also differences in approach to activities in the immediate run-up to the referendum—the purdah period—with 18 local authorities imposing no additional restrictions and 14 doing so.
This is quite a difficult area of policy and is one in relation to which, in the interests of our young people, a harmonised approach should be built. I should say, to reassure the Deputy First Minister, that I hope that we can have a cross-party approach in that respect, because we can improve on what happened in the independence referendum. None of the issues is insurmountable, but leadership and guidance are required, and it would be quite wrong to put that exclusively at the feet of the Scottish Government: other agencies must play their role.
The bill heralds an exciting era for our young people. It is an opportunity for them to continue their high level of engagement on topical affairs that we saw in the independence referendum. I have much pleasure in confirming my party’s support for the bill at decision time.
16:20
It is not the norm for a member to speak in a stage 3 debate as a committee convener. As members will find out later in my speech, I am certainly not speaking as the convener of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee when I speak in a way that is slightly controversial, shall we say.
I will start in convener mode, by thanking first of all the clerking team, particularly Heather Galway, who helped us to steer the bill through as quickly as we could—as Lewis Macdonald noted in his speech—given the timescale. Without the clerking team’s help and guidance, I am not sure that we would have got there.
I thank the Government too, as it picked up on a number of issues from the committee’s stage 1 report, reflected on them and responded positively, particularly—as John Swinney mentioned—in the arena of political literacy. That was a very important area for the committee, and we wanted to ensure that there was much more consistency, so in that respect we were delighted—I certainly was—with the response from the cabinet secretary. I am pleased that Education Scotland is revising its guidance.
There have been many times since the Scottish Parliament came into being 16 years ago that I have felt very proud of the progressive nature of this institution. There has been legislation on land reform, smoking in public places, the scrapping of graduation taxation, climate change and equal marriage—to name but a few of the fantastic changes that we have made to our country that we should celebrate.
Tonight at 5 o’clock will be another one of those moments—when we pass legislation that will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections to Parliament and to Scotland’s local authorities. We will make a bit of history by joining the small band of countries that have given the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and we will give a lead to the rest of the world.
I never had any doubts that extending the franchise is the right thing to do, until a meeting with a 16-year-old person just last week. As many of my colleagues will be aware, the Scottish Youth Parliament had a stand in the garden lobby last week to bring MSPs up to date with its work. I went along—as one does—to have a chat and to have the obligatory photograph taken. Cat, who is a member of my staff, was there to take a photograph of me alongside an SYP member. As we departed the stand, I commented that I would send out the image on Twitter as soon I could. At that stage, I heard the member of the SYP, in discussion with my member of staff, utter the words, “Will I show him how to use his Twitter account? Does he know how to do it?” I know that I have my bus pass, but I think I still have my full faculties. For the briefest of moments, I wondered about the wisdom of giving the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Joking aside, however, my conviction that we should enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds was turned into a burning desire by the fantastic response of Scotland’s young people to last year’s referendum. If anyone had any doubts before the referendum about the wisdom of extending the franchise, those doubts were, in the main, swept away by the enthusiastic engagement of our young people in deciding Scotland’s future.
I say well done to the Conservative Party in Scotland for making the journey from opposing votes at 16 to fully endorsing the right of our young people to be heard—at least in Scotland. I know that the Scottish Conservatives will find it difficult to state publicly that they would support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the forthcoming EU referendum, but I hope that they are doing their best, quietly behind the scenes, to persuade the Prime Minister to change the direction of the UK Government in that regard. We will see what happens later on this afternoon in the House of Commons—Stephen Gethins from the Scottish National Party has tabled an amendment in that regard.
I began to realise just how deeply entrenched Conservative views at Westminster are when I heard John Redwood MP commenting on BBC Radio 4 that politically active teenagers are “a myth”. After meeting so many 16 and 17-year-olds, I have to disagree strongly with that statement. It just does not reflect reality. I can only advise Mr Redwood to visit, say, Fort William and Levenmouth, which the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee visited to speak to many young people, and where the committee found that our young people had immersed themselves in the campaign every bit as much as the older generations—and perhaps with even more vigour and energy.
Louise Cameron, who is a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, reflected on the issue at one of the committee’s oral evidence-taking sessions. She said:
“We have disproven all the arguments against votes at 16 ... It would be a great thing for the UK system to have votes at 16 as well. Mr Cameron needs to seriously consider his priorities and have that discussion.”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 23 April 2015; c 32.]
Quite. I could not agree more with Louise, so it is perhaps fitting that I leave the last word with her.
16:25
Today is the culmination of not only a bill but a campaign with regard to parliamentary elections. As far as the bill is concerned, we should certainly pay tribute not only to Bruce Crawford’s committee but to the Government for the way in which it has responded to the committee’s recommendations by, for example, amending the bill to protect the personal information of young people on the register and, as the cabinet secretary has made clear, taking advice on the matter from data protection and child protection experts.
The campaign for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds has been going on for a long time. It has involved a coalition of diverse groups, but we should perhaps pay special tribute to the Scottish Youth Parliament, whose members have proved to be great campaigners, not least on this issue.
As we know, the independence referendum marked the first time in which the vote was extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. Eighty per cent of them registered and 75 per cent of them turned out to vote. As Bruce Crawford has suggested, that probably explains the transformation of the debate in Scotland; as far as I can see, anyone who had doubts before the referendum does not have doubts any more.
What a contrast that is to what is happening in the House of Commons as we speak. I happened to catch a little bit of the debate before I came into the chamber for the provisional outturn statement and heard a Conservative MP saying, “Well, we can’t give votes to 16 and 17-year-olds, because they keep changing their minds.” I am sorry to say that no one needs to remind Labour members that it is not just 16 and 17-year-olds who change their minds at parliamentary elections.
I note that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee received more than 1,000 responses from many who took part in the referendum. For example, Louise Cameron said:
“The experience of the referendum was absolutely great. It has helped us to disprove all the arguments against votes at 16”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 23 April 2015; c 16.]
I think that that is the case. Already more young people are getting involved in politics, and I believe that that trend will continue as the bill is implemented.
In that respect, we can point to evidence based on practice as well as theory. I have two quotations, but I might have time to read out only the first, which is based on practice. In what I think was evidence to the committee, Dr Jan Eichhorn said:
“all measures of increased political engagement have outlasted the referendum itself and apply to the general election context, even for the 16-17 year olds in Scotland. Comparing them with their English counterparts we found that 61% say they had talked about ‘how the UK is governed’ with members of their family in the last three months ... while only 37% of their English peers report the same.”
I was going to read out a more theoretical quotation from a 2004 book by Mark Franklin called “Voter Turnout and The Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945”, but essentially Mr Franklin was arguing on theoretical grounds that 15 or 16 is the best age for people to start voting.
I can give you a bit of extra time if you need it.
I have a few other things to say, Presiding Officer. I will read out the quotation at the end if I have time.
Of course, the key to the bill’s successful implementation is increasing the young population’s awareness of their right to vote and the need to make an informed decision. I note that the Electoral Commission outlined to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee its plans to work with EROs on public awareness campaigns, with more of an emphasis on awareness raising through social media as well as through partnership working with a range of organisations.
We need to look to the future after today, as the bill is certainly going to be passed in half an hour’s time. In the longer term, we need to use the bill as a catalyst for further political or citizenship education—whatever we want to call it—in schools. I was pleased to hear what the cabinet secretary said about that today. I devoted some of my stage 1 speech to the matter when I talked about updated political education. However, as the cabinet secretary reminded us, this is already embedded in the curriculum for excellence. Today’s announcements about refreshed guidance and more consistency are entirely welcome and should address some of the concerns that were expressed on the matter at stage 1.
This is one of those occasions when all parties in the chamber are united. We can all feel proud that we are leading the way in the UK on the matter. Who knows? Perhaps we can even hope that, when our colleagues in the other Parliament read about this debate, they will be inspired to legislate for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the European referendum, which will be held around the same time.
16:31
Like the Deputy First Minister, I am delighted that both of Scotland’s Governments have worked together to extend the voting franchise. That prompt co-operation means that around 100,000 more young people will be able to decide as soon as next May who will best represent them. It is right that 16 and 17-year-olds will once again, after last year’s referendum, be trusted to have a say in the future of their local communities and the direction of their country.
Some folk think that lowering the voting age by two years does not sound like much, but those two years are a defining period in one’s life. At 16 or 17, a person could be leaving school, going to college, planning for university, taking on an apprenticeship or entering the world of work. Even compared to 18 and 19-year-olds, they will use public services differently and access entirely separate services. Therefore, they often have very different priorities and perspectives. It is also fundamentally unfair that, at present, the liability to pay tax is not accompanied by the right to elect those who collect and spend one’s contributions.
As Children in Scotland observed,
“it is clear that by this stage in life, young people have a stake in society and are significantly and directly affected by the policies and decisions of political parties.”
It is important that our democratic processes reflect that. Young people should not be forced to depend on older voters to represent their distinct interests and varied values. By fostering an interest in voting at an earlier age, we have an opportunity in the long term to reverse the trend of waning turnouts. It is to be hoped that the engagement that we see will, in a wee while, lead to a greater diversity in our council chambers and, indeed, the Parliament.
In the lead-up to the referendum, the Scottish Youth Parliament highlighted the thoughts of one 18-year-old from Dundee:
“At the age of sixteen, I knew much more than my parents about voting systems and UK politics, because I learned about it every day in school ... if you can nurture the interest in politics sparked by schools and teachers, and show them that their opinions matter, you’ll have a citizen who understands and uses their right to vote”.
I could not agree more. The bill is only the start of a process to ensure that teenagers are registered, educated and informed. Legislative reform must be accompanied by a strategy to increase awareness and political literacy. Therefore, I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s comments on the way forward on that.
Young Scot, the Scottish Youth Parliament and YouthLink Scotland, in their joint submission to the committee, highlighted that
“all young people, no matter where they live, should have equal access to high quality and well resourced political and civic education”.
Last year, many schools in my region held mature class discussions and hotly contested mock independence referendums. However, as we heard at stage 1, such provision was inconsistent across the country, so there is work to be done to ensure that every local authority is engaged with that task.
I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government was not able to support my amendment this afternoon. I accept the Government’s reluctance to test whether it would be competent to use a section 30 order to do what my amendment proposed—there is a sense that we must be cautious about it—but I was disappointed that Mr Swinney also rejected it as an aspiration; he said that he did not support it in policy terms. The SNP likes to paint itself as progressive but, in reality, that is not always the case. I hope that we can return to the matter—we will have to do so, as we know that we are not complying with international law. The legal impasse that we have reached about whose role it is to fix this needs to be resolved. If we can get our heads together on votes at 16 and move things forward on that, surely we can also get our heads together, between the two Parliaments, and sort this issue out—if there is a will to do so.
I hope that this bill is only the start and that further legislative changes at Westminster and Holyrood follow to ensure that all our young people always have the right to a say on the issues that affect them. Liberal Democrats, like many others in the chamber, have campaigned for this for many years. I am very proud to vote for the bill today.
16:35
I join the convener of the committee and Lewis Macdonald in thanking our clerks, advisers, SPICe and those who gave evidence to the committee, which was most helpful to us in examining the bill.
I believe that we are here today debating this legislation to reduce the voting age not because a Government or politicians decided that it was what we should do, but because 16 and 17-year-olds have demanded the right to take part in the democratic process. They have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are as capable as any other citizen of this country when it comes to voting in elections and even referendums. Anyone who was involved in last year’s independence referendum knows that it was self-evident that 16 and 17-year-olds were passionate, articulate, well-informed and worthy participants in that debate.
I note in passing that only yesterday—I believe—Japan lowered the voting age to 18. I am sure that that is a welcome step for young people in Japan. Perhaps it will not be too long before they get round to following our example on 16 and 17-year-olds. There are different positions around the world on this, but the trend is towards lowering the voting age certainly to 18 and beyond in many countries, as well as Scotland.
Prior to the referendum we lived in a time of declining democratic participation, particularly among younger people. Scotland has changed in a way that I believe is unique among western nations. We now live in a society in which people are engaged and excited about politics. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have been at the heart of that positive change. It is only logical for the Scottish Parliament to now enshrine their voting rights for all future elections over which we have control. That phrase “over which we have control” is very important. It is unfortunate to say the least that the logical and reasonable position that we should extend the voting franchise is not one that is held universally. Many of our younger first-time voters were engaged participants in the independence referendum only to have the vote denied them in the recent general election.
The UK Government’s refusal to allow votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the upcoming referendum on EU membership is just another example of the diverging political cultures north and south of the border. That has been clearly demonstrated by a recent University of Edinburgh study that found that two thirds of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland would have been very likely to vote in the general election had they been given the opportunity to do so. However, only 39 per cent of the same group said the same in the rest of the UK. That study also concluded that Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds were better informed, more likely to discuss politics with their family and more likely to have engaged directly with their member of Parliament than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK.
The message therefore is clear. If we want to rejuvenate democratic participation and increase engagement, Governments must take an open and inclusive approach to the voting franchise. It is clear to everyone that the referendum campaign empowered and educated the Scottish electorate like never before. Therefore, I believe that the work that has been undertaken by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee has been very constructive in developing a strong, evidence-based approach to the benefits of extending the voting franchise to our younger citizens.
During our evidence sessions we heard directly from young people themselves, as well as from those who are involved in administering elections and compiling registers. I was pleased that the evidence gathered during those sessions led to a general statement of support from our committee for the bill. However, the committee also found that we need to improve the manner in which colleges and schools approach the discussion of election issues. As others have mentioned, that was an area in which we found a variation in practice across the country. That needs to be resolved so that all young people are free to debate and discuss current affairs even during an election period. I very much welcome the Deputy First Minister’s comments on that in his opening speech. He outlined a very welcome and positive move, which I hope will resolve the issue for future elections.
It is clear that Scotland’s future success is dependent on the active participation of our younger citizens. We need their engagement, intellect, passion and interest in improving society for everyone’s benefit if we are to succeed as a country. Their inclusion in the voting franchise is a natural extension of the progressive and inclusive politics that flourished during the independence campaign. I hope that we will show our faith in them by passing the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill.
Sixteen and 17-year-olds have already proven that they can make an important contribution to our national debate. My final point is therefore addressed to them. They should not be discouraged by Westminster blocking their right to vote. Their voice in this debate is welcome and valued, and it will be heard.
16:40
If it hardly seems appropriate to say that the debate has been spirited and contentious, or that it has been a debate of high emotion, it has nonetheless been a passionate debate. I have respected the clear enthusiasm and sentiment that have been obvious from many contributors and their genuine pleasure in having secured such a change to the franchise in Scotland for Scottish Parliament and local government elections.
The issues have emerged in a chronology or sequence of their own. The process began with the Smith agreement and the section 30 order, and there have been some sweet moments—that is not a phrase that I often use about debates in the Parliament. The Deputy First Minister was the architect of one of those sweet moments with his fulsome praise for the United Kingdom Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is very welcome for the present, and it might be a precedent for the future. I live in hope.
To be fair, Lewis Macdonald also referred to the smoothness of the bill’s progress. As we have discussed, that was important because of the timetable and the work that will fall on electoral registration officers. Again, I join in praising the committee that looked at the bill and my friend, the convener of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee—the parliamentary deity who is sitting patiently at the back of the chamber. I think that he said that this is a bit of history. Indeed, that is exactly what it is.
A number of members have commented on the new lexicon and “political literacy”. I suppose that that phrase is apposite in its own way and descriptive, although it seems a bit sexless. Maybe we could come up with something snazzier. Nonetheless, the concept is vital. I am, of course, indebted to the Deputy First Minister for his comments on that, which other members echoed. If “political literacy” is the jargon that we are going to use, let that not detract from good old-fashioned literacy and numeracy, which, as the Deputy First Minister knows, are dear to the heart of my party.
In a thoughtful contribution, Malcolm Chisholm referred to the longer-term implications of what all this means. That contribution was interesting and reflective. The bill could be a catalyst for more education in schools. Obviously, that was conceived in the mind of the Deputy First Minister. I was struck by Mr Chisholm’s spirit of ambitious adventure when he suggested that we might even proselytise to Westminster on its discussions on the merits of lowering the voting age. In all seriousness, the model that has been deployed in the Scottish Parliament for the independence referendum franchise and Scottish elections is just that: it is a model and a very good example of how to deal with legislation. Others in another place will have to come to their decision on the franchise for other elections.
On the broad theme of political literacy, Alison McInnes mentioned the need to resolve the inconsistencies of approach. I think that we have all been reassured by what the Deputy First Minister said on that front. We all recognise that that is an issue. As I said, it is not by any means insurmountable, but focused and wise leadership and guidance will be needed to ensure that we try to iron out those particular rucks in the material.
There have been very positive contributions about the legacy of all this—what we hope will be the outcome. For example, Lewis Macdonald highlighted that he hoped that there would be better engagement by young people with the political process. He hoped for heightened interest and specifically mentioned the Scottish Youth Parliament.
Bruce Crawford cited evidence from the referendum that indicated that young people’s levels of engagement are very encouraging. I think that we would all agree with that.
On the question of legacy, Alison McInnes, looking ahead to the future, said that she hoped that there would be improved turnout, perhaps even in local authority elections. We would all welcome that, because it has been a concern for the wider electorate, not just for those in the political arena.
Miss Goldie, could you draw to a close please?
I was trying to pad out my speech as best as I could, Presiding Officer, so your telling me that I must bring it to a close is music to my ears. It has been a good debate and it has been a pleasure to take part in it.
16:45
I echo the comments of the Deputy First Minister and others in thanking everyone who has brought the bill in in time to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections. I was not on the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee at that time, so I can express fulsome congratulations to its convener on the committee’s hard and speedy work. It was described by Lewis Macdonald as the minimum of fuss and the maximum gain. That sums up what the committee achieved in a very short time.
I welcome the other issue that was mentioned by the Deputy First Minister, Annabel Goldie and others, which is the question of political literacy. We must recognise that, although 16 and 17-year-olds will have achieved the right to vote, sustaining engagement is just as important.
Lewis Macdonald reminded us that it was not just young people but a whole lot of other people who registered to vote in the referendum and expressed an interest in politics.
I make the case for the Scottish Parliament and its legacy over the past 15 or 16 years. The Parliament’s political education programme has allowed tens of thousands of young people—some of those who visited the Parliament many years ago were voters in the referendum—to recognise the Parliament as the focus of political discussion in Scotland, just as we all wanted it to be. They see it as their Parliament—open, inclusive and available to all.
I thank Duncan McNeil for affording me the opportunity to say that we met a number of 16 and 17-year-olds today in Parliament who are young carers and to put on record the vital role and contribution that they make to society. Does he agree that they are a powerful example of why 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland should be able to vote in Scotland’s elections?
Bob Doris makes a very good point, as did Bruce Crawford when speaking about the contribution of the Scottish Youth Parliament. Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the SYP’s role in campaigning.
I make the same point for the committees of the Parliament. The level of engagement that we have had from young people is impressive: the Falkirk young carers who made representations on the Carers (Scotland) Bill; the young people who made representations to and worked with us to develop our report on access to community support; and the young people with whom we discussed the very difficult situation of poverty and inequality. All those young people have worked very hard.
In this debate and previous ones, people have reflected on the words of young people and how they express their desire to participate fully in our democracy in Scotland. However, what won them the vote, which they demanded, as Stewart Maxwell said—it is a gift, but not one that we give them; it is their demand—was their actions; it was not their words but their actions that were powerful. They did not just register to vote in record numbers; they participated in the campaigns and were active on both sides of the debate. Some joined political parties as a consequence and have remained active in other areas. They made the case for lowering the voting age by their actions, which were louder than words, and they deserve the result that they will receive tonight when the Parliament votes to give them the vote that they demanded.
On wider issues, we discussed at great length at today’s meeting of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee—the discussion might have been in private, but I do not think that the subject is secret—the work that is going on through that committee to bring about a citizens’ guide to this whole process. I think that that could be very useful in helping to sustain the engagement in our democratic process of not only young people but the whole population of Scotland, given the new situation that we find ourselves in, We will have a new demographic bringing younger voters and more vibrancy to the process, balanced with the knowledge that our older voters have.
Like other members, I look forward to passing the bill into law tonight at decision time to give those young people the vote.
I call John Swinney to wind up the debate. Deputy First Minister, you have until 5 o’clock, please.
16:51
I begin with my colleague Stewart Maxwell’s remark, which I think captured the sense of the debate: it is not the case that Parliament has concluded, after taking a lot of evidence and considering persuasive arguments, that it is now right to enable young people to vote in elections, but that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have aspired to and argued for that right, and have delivered it. Winning that argument convincingly and getting to the point at which all political parties are signed up to that position is a particular achievement for the young people of Scotland. That is the climate of the debate today.
In getting to that point, we received from young people, across a range of different interventions, a lot of representations, including from the Scottish Youth Parliament. I have to say to members that that has been one of this Parliament’s great innovations. I met members of the Scottish Youth Parliament this morning in advance of today’s debate. We also received representations from organisations such as Young Scot, which also participated in the discussions that I had this morning, and NUS Scotland. All those organisations gave comprehensive evidence to the committee to inform the debate and to marshal arguments for why it is right and appropriate for young people to have the vote in parliamentary and local authority elections in Scotland. That right has been aspired to and delivered by the energy and commitment of young people in our society.
Duncan McNeil referred to the interesting implication of all that, which is that it has not been about young people just, in essence, turning up to vote on a particular day; it is about a degree of participation that, to be frank, many of us have not seen in our country for some considerable time. We should be enormously encouraged as a country that young people believe that they have an active and participative role to perform in our society—not just on the particular Thursday that happens to be the day when we all turn up to vote in an election, but in formulating wider thinking about the direction of our country. If we look at issues that Parliament addresses and considers, we find almost invariably that our deliberations are informed by the input, views and perspective of younger people who are able to contribute.
We should therefore look back at the whole process of how we have arrived at the situation whereby 16 and 17-year-olds will acquire the right to vote in Scottish and local authority elections by the unanimous view of this Parliament in just a few minutes. We should acknowledge that the situation has been created by the aspiration and willingness to participate in our democratic and civic process of the young people of Scotland. Across the political spectrum, we should unreservedly welcome that.
That leads to a further challenge for us: we should not allow the process just to stop here. As Malcolm Chisholm pointed out in his speech, we have to find other ways to encourage and motivate young people to be active and engaged participants in a wide variety of elements of the democratic process.
Over the course of the speeches in the debate, the issue in which there has been new thinking is political literacy. I hear what Annabel Goldie said about the terminology; I would prefer a different term, because I find it rather difficult to say “political literacy” without pausing for too long. Perhaps we will work on finding a different term. In any case, I am determined that we do the proper work that is required for a much more consistent approach on that question than the one that Annabel Goldie expressed to Parliament at stage 1—an approach that I think, to be charitable, was at best inconsistent across the country. It needs to be more consistent.
On the political process that we have gone through, I know that there are more Conservative members in the chamber for this part of the debate than were here earlier, but I am sure that Miss Goldie will share with them the generous remarks that I made about the Secretary of State for Scotland and the process. It just goes to show that, where political will exists on both sides to make progress on devolution of powers and responsibilities, it can happen in a straightforward and orderly fashion.
I record my hope that, as we go through the further stages of devolution of responsibilities under the Scotland Bill, we will learn lessons from the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill and apply them to processes that, at the outset, look to me as though they are heading for pretty tortuous discussions, in respect of how we devolve responsibilities to this Parliament in a manner that is efficient and effective, such that it allows us to make the necessary progress in acquiring the powers and responsibilities where the evidence, information and consensus of stakeholder opinion would enable us to get there in a quicker and more decisive fashion. That approach will be pursued by the Scottish Government. I hope that we can also see some of that from the United Kingdom Government.
I share the Deputy First Minister’s view that positive intergovernmental relations will be very important in the period ahead. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Deputy First Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland who progressed the section 30 order so quickly and efficiently is not the same the Secretary of State for Scotland that we have today?
I am not sure that I follow Mr Macdonald’s point. I do not think that that is the case, in fact; I am pretty sure that all this was done under Mr Mundell’s stewardship. I will not get distracted on that particular point, however. I am sure that the record will speak for itself. I am not sure whether that was Lewis Macdonald trying to salvage something for Alistair Carmichael. If it was, good luck to him. In any case, it is important that good intergovernmental work can speed up the processes.
As we have been debating the bill, with Parliament about to vote unanimously to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, I am led to believe that the House of Commons voted by 310 to 265 against extending the voting franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the EU referendum. That is a democratic decision at which the House of Commons is entitled to arrive, but it illustrates the different political culture and the different political debate that is going on in Scotland today. We must consider the debate on this question in a fashion that allows us to come to a different conclusion; there are plenty of other issues on which we can come to different conclusions.
Members of Parliament need to think about the basis on which we take our decisions—the questions that influence those decisions and the factors, the evidence and the attitudes that prevail in the community in Scotland that say that it is a given that 16 and 17-year-olds should vote in parliamentary and local authority elections. We need to accept that that is different from the prevailing culture elsewhere in the UK and we need to reflect that difference in political culture in the decisions that we arrive at, one of which we are about to take.