Scottish Parliament Election 2016 (Votes for 16 and 17-year-olds)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the comments in the recent House of Lords committee report regarding extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish election. (S4T-00945)
The Scottish Government does not accept the views expressed in the House of Lords committee report. Both Parliaments have been asked to consider the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the power to lower the voting age, as recommended by the Smith commission. Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 is a tailor-made process for doing that. That process has been used many times, including to enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate to hold the referendum on independence last year.
The Scottish Government’s proposal to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in Scottish Parliament and local authority elections will be the subject of a bill that will be scrutinised in detail by the Scottish Parliament. Many of the points in the report will be considered as part of that process and need not affect the consideration of the order.
Is the Deputy First Minister aware that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee has now met more than 150 high school pupils from across Scotland and surveyed more than 1,000 online, and that the vast majority support voting rights at 16 for elections in Scotland? Does he agree that, before coming to its conclusion on voting rights for 16 and 17-year-olds, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution should have engaged in a real and meaningful discussion with young people on this important matter, however remarkable that idea might be to it?
That would have been helpful. I think that the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum, which the Scottish Parliament legislated for, is viewed across the board as one of the most successful elements of democratic participation that we have seen in many years in Scotland and one of the key democratic triumphs of the referendum campaign. I think that those of us who witnessed the engagement and enthusiasm of young people in exercising their democratic rights saw their value and impact on the process. Crucially, we all saw that young people were able to express their views and contribute in a substantive way in the referendum process. The concerns and views that the House of Lords committee report expresses are therefore unfounded.
Mr Crawford made a point about the extensive engagement that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee has undertaken. In a sense, that opens up the awareness and scrutiny of this important area of activity. I am glad that that engagement by the committee has had such a positive response.
Does the Deputy First Minister further agree that it would be astonishing and deeply regrettable if the unelected House of Lords failed to agree to pass the draft order on Thursday, particularly given that the House of Commons agreed on the matter without a vote on 2 February and that all parties that are represented in the Scottish Parliament support the proposal to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for elections to the Scottish Parliament?
There is something wholly absurd about an unelected house of Parliament trying to constrain the willingness of two democratically elected institutions—the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament— to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in our society. It would be equally absurd if a cohort of young people who were able to exercise their democratic responsibilities so effectively and fully in the referendum last September were denied the opportunity to participate in the 2016 Scottish Parliament and 2017 local authority elections.
For many young people, it will be very strange that they were able to participate in the referendum but will not be able to participate in the forthcoming United Kingdom general election. However, I democratically accept that that is an issue for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to determine. It would be absurd if two democratically elected institutions—the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament—had their will thwarted on the matter. Therefore, I hope that the House of Lords will support the order on Thursday.
We would always note the concerns of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, but it certainly does not bear out our experience in the referendum. I associate myself with the cabinet secretary’s remarks about the participation of young people. It is important to recognise that voting for 16 to 18-year-olds was passed unanimously by the House of Commons. Labour is absolutely committed to extending the franchise, as are very many other members in the chamber.
Does the cabinet secretary agree with our proposals to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a senate of nations and regions to give Scotland a stronger voice in the United Kingdom?
I always endeavour to find points of agreement with Jackie Baillie. On some of this, she and I are as one. I very much agree on her point about the section 30 order. I appreciate the Labour Party’s support on the order in this Parliament, notwithstanding the legitimate scrutiny that will be exercised when the bill is introduced, which is entirely the proper preserve of the Labour Party.
Jackie Baillie will be familiar with the fact that I am not a fan of the House of Lords. We would manage quite well without it. She and I will not agree on the question of future constitutional structures because, despite the disappointment of the referendum result last September, I remain committed to a unicameral Scottish Parliament managing the democratic affairs of an independent country.
Jackie Baillie?
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for an unexpected opportunity to ask a further question. Will some of the efforts that went into increasing the registration of 16 and 17-year-olds for the referendum be replicated for the Scottish Parliament elections? We can learn much from the good practice that extended across Scotland at that time.
That is a valid point. It is clear that, during the referendum process, young people had the opportunity to understand the issues that were involved. I saw those issues being taken forward very seriously by young people, with a tremendous amount of engagement. I watched a major debate that the now First Minister took part in with young people at the SSE Hydro. All that I can say about that debate is that I am glad that I was not on the panel. It was a courteous but demanding environment in which to participate. Any observer of the process would see that the young people did the country proud by how they contributed to the debate.
We must accept that voting by 16 and 17-year-olds is a new part of our democratic process. Therefore, we must ensure that young people are properly and dispassionately equipped for that process. The Government will consider seriously how those issues are progressed. Of course, that is a material point that Jackie Baillie will be free to advance during the consideration of the bill that follows the passage of the section 30 order.
Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that it is important that the House of Lords does not stick its oar in at this point, as any delay in making the order will seriously impact on our ability to enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds in time for the next Holyrood election?
Mr Don’s point is absolutely correct: time is of the essence. The order must be approved by the Privy Council before the Westminster Parliament rises for the United Kingdom election. The Privy Council is meeting on 19 March, if memory serves me right, and if the order does not reach that meeting, it cannot come into force. If that happens, this Parliament’s opportunity to legislate properly for the exercise of the voting functions and then to give adequate time for the necessary electoral registration arrangements to be made—those arrangements will not be straightforward and will need to be done carefully and effectively—will be lost. There is next to no time for the House of Lords to do anything other than respect the democratic will of this Parliament and the House of Commons.
I speak as one of the few members of the chamber who voted against the provision to give 16 and 17-year-olds a referendum vote. However, I have, by virtue of the referendum experience, changed my position on extending the franchise to them. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that expression of unity should send the clear message to anyone who is concerned about the process that there is unanimity in granting the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in future Scottish elections and that, although it is right to ask questions, it is wrong to stand in the way of that unanimity?
It is always a delight to see Mr Johnstone changing his mind about something. I just wonder what else we might, with our powers of persuasion, get him to change his mind about in future. Now that we know that Mr Johnstone has some room in his mind to consider alternative propositions, we shall try ever harder to persuade him of their merits.
I welcome Mr Johnstone’s contribution. In all seriousness, it is welcome that the Conservative Party, which had reservations about the issue, has taken a different view based on evidence and experience. I compliment the Conservative Party for doing that. It adds to the weight of my argument that Parliament is as one on the question, across all political perspectives.
As I said in answer to Jackie Baillie, there will have to be a piece of legislation in this Parliament to put in place these arrangements. At that time, there will be ample opportunity for all manner of specific issues to be considered, and the Government will allocate the necessary time to ensure that that is the case. To get to that point, the order must be cleared by the Privy Council before the Westminster Parliament rises for the United Kingdom election. I hope that Mr Johnstone’s contribution will help to encourage that process this Thursday.
That ends topical question time.
Previous
Time for Reflection