The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13285, in the name of John Swinney, on the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. The run-over from the preceding statement will have some impact on the debate. I expect speakers in the open debate to have four minutes. The opening speakers will have their usual allocation but, if they could shave any time off it, that would be extremely helpful to debate management.
15:15
Presiding Officer, I intend to restrict my speech to help as you requested. I am sure that Parliament appreciates enormously the decision that you made about the statement.
I am delighted to open the debate on the principles of the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. I express my thanks to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill and to those who contributed to the consultation process.
Eligibility for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote was taken forward in the independence referendum legislation. In the referendum’s aftermath, everyone judged that to be a successful initiative that enabled young people to participate fully in the settling of our country’s future. On the basis of that initiative’s success, we propose to extend to 16 and 17-year-olds eligibility to vote in local authority and Scottish Parliament elections.
The bill that is before Parliament lowers the voting age to 16 for Scottish Parliament and local government elections and any other elections that adopt the local government franchise. It provides for modifications to electoral registration forms to capture the details of all those who are eligible to register; it provides for how young people in particular situations are to be dealt with in existing electoral registration systems; and it sets out specific protections to be placed on any data that is collected on electors when aged under 16.
I turn to the committee’s recommendations and the Scottish Government’s proposals on how we will take them forward. First, I will deal with political literacy education and the discussion of election issues in schools and colleges. The committee noted that it heard evidence of inconsistency in local authorities’ approaches during the referendum. In its report on the arrangements for the referendum, it recommended that Education Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Electoral Commission and others should
“consider how rules within schools during”
a future pre-election
“period should be applied to ensure that”
young
“voters ... are able to discuss the issue freely in school in particular through discussions with teaching staff.”
In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that Education Scotland should review its guidance to bring more clarity about the activities that may be considered to be best practice in schools, particularly during pre-election periods.
As I said in evidence to the committee, there is existing guidance on political literacy education. That guidance takes the right approach. It respects teachers’ professional discretion to determine what is taught in the classroom while encouraging schools and teachers to enable young people to develop their political literacy skills through a variety of engaging activities. That point was made to me strongly by a group of young people who I met this morning under the auspices of Young Scot, who raised the importance of access to quality and objective information in the school estate, which enables young people to formulate their views. I was grateful to them for their advice and their contribution.
I am pleased to say that Education Scotland is reviewing and updating its suite of political literacy educational resources and that it is working with a wide range of stakeholders, including young people and youth groups, to do so. That work is due to be ready in September.
I agree with the committee that further guidance to bring clarity on the activities that might be undertaken in schools in pre-election periods would be helpful. I encourage all the organisations with an interest to work together in considering how the guidance could be developed to further support schools and colleges to engage confidently with election issues. It will be important for school and college leaders, teachers, parents and—most important—young people to be involved in the process.
It is crucial that the guidance continues to respect teachers’ professional discretion and ensures impartiality and balance in the information that young people receive about elections. I am sure that all those involved will want all young people to be given every opportunity to reach a fair and dispassionate understanding of political processes and of their choices.
I turn to political donations and young voters. The committee noted that restrictions on the data that will be published about young voters might mean that political parties would have difficulty in identifying that a young voter was registered to vote and therefore an eligible donor under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The committee considered potential solutions, including the possibility that a young person could seek written confirmation from the relevant electoral registration officer that they were registered. That approach has considerable merit, and the Scottish Government is considering the form of amendments that could be lodged at stage 2 to provide for that suggestion.
Another issue that was raised was the possible implications for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service of not showing attainment dates for 16 and 17-year-olds on the published register. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service was concerned that that could affect its ability to identify those who are eligible for jury service, for which the qualifying age is 18. Again, I offer a positive response, in that the Scottish Government plans to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to provide that the published register will include attainment dates for 16 and 17-year-olds, which will address the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s concerns. Of course, no information on those who are aged under 16 will appear on any published version of the register.
I will now deal with local authorities’ duties towards looked-after children. As I have noted, the bill includes a duty on local authorities to promote awareness and provide assistance to enable the registration of looked-after children. Like the committee, I have some sympathy with organisations such as the centre for excellence for looked after children in Scotland, which takes the view that the duty should be extended to care leavers. I have asked my officials to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities whether there is a proportionate and practical approach that could assist, while avoiding unreasonable burdens on local authorities.
The committee noted that the Electoral Commission raised an issue about the interpretation of the bill with respect to the registration deadline for young voters. The intention in the bill is that the registration deadline should be the same for young voters as for all other voters—that is, 12 days before a poll. Having reviewed the relevant section, the Scottish Government is satisfied that it does not result in a later registration deadline for young voters and that no amendment is needed. My officials are in discussions with the Electoral Commission on that basis and we will write to the committee about the outcome of those discussions.
I will now touch on ensuring that registration and electoral information is accessible to children with additional support needs. Of course, I share the objective of the committee and of organisations such as Children in Scotland that the registration and electoral process should engage and be accessible to children with additional support needs. I do not believe that there is a need to amend the bill, but I am happy to support work to review relevant materials.
I thank the committee for the thoughtful work that it has done on the bill to date. There is some way to go before the bill completes its passage, but I am encouraged by the broad support that it has received in Parliament and among key stakeholders. I take the opportunity to thank the United Kingdom Government and the Electoral Commission for the assistance that they have provided with a number of practical issues related to registration forms and the digital service—and, not least, for our ability to embark on introducing the bill by virtue of the co-operation on the required section 30 order.
The bill builds on the outstanding success of the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum. It extends that opportunity to elections under this Parliament’s control, which will give younger people a stronger stake in our democracy. Young people grasped the opportunity with energy and enthusiasm during the referendum, and I urge members to support the general principles of the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill.
Mr Swinney, I am indebted to you.
I call Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee. You have a maximum of nine minutes.
15:23
I will try to abide by what you said earlier, Presiding Officer, and shorten my speech a bit.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, which is the lead committee in consideration of the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. I thank everyone who provided evidence on the bill to the committee, whether during formal evidence sessions or through the online call for evidence. In particular, I thank the clerks—specifically Heather Galway, the lead clerk involved in much of the work on the bill. I also thank all the committee’s members for their constructive approach to the bill and for our unanimous report.
We received 17 responses from organisations such as the Electoral Commission, Young Scot, the Scottish Youth Parliament and Children in Scotland. They and all others were welcome contributions.
In addition to receiving written and oral evidence, the committee tried to connect with as many young people as possible to hear their views and ensure that their voices were heard on this important issue. As part of our wider Parliament days, we visited Levenmouth and Fort William and met more than 200 16 and 17-year-olds. The key finding from the committee’s discussions with the 16 and 17-year-olds who voted in the independence referendum was that school pupils felt that they had shown that they are fully capable of making informed decisions.
As well as our call for evidence, we did an online survey that was completed by more than 1,000 16 and 17-year-olds. The results were very clear: more than 79 per cent of respondents agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in future elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities. The survey highlighted how politically engaged 16 and 17-year-olds had become since being allowed to vote in the independence referendum. Since then, 26 per cent of those who responded to the survey said that they had joined a political campaign or taken part in campaigning or political activities, and a further 63 per cent had found out more about politics.
I am delighted to say that all five political parties that are represented on the committee unanimously support the general principles of the bill. I can also confirm that, in the evidence that was provided to the committee, we received no substantive objection to the bill’s main objective—to reduce the voting age to 16 for Scottish Parliament and local government elections.
I will briefly go over some of the key issues for the committee should the bill receive approval at stage 1. The first is awareness among young people of their right to vote and education-related issues. The committee welcomes the work that the Electoral Commission and its partners are doing to raise awareness among young people of their rights and the process for registration and voting. The committee received strong oral evidence from numerous witnesses that highlighted the importance of schools as a forum for discussion for young people. One of the main problems that school pupils and youth organisations highlighted was the lack of consistency across schools and colleges on political engagement. We heard that some schools gave many opportunities to discuss political issues in the run-up to the independence referendum but, in others, pupils were advised that they could not have organised discussions, especially during the latter stages of the campaign, which naturally coincided with the point at which young people became most engaged.
One pupil I spoke with in Levenmouth told me how she had tried to arrange a debate with politicians from the yes and no campaigns but was advised that it was not allowed in the school. Similar issues were highlighted on numerous occasions; that was frustrating and confusing for many school pupils.
In light of that, the committee saw the need for national guidelines to be produced to ensure consistency across local authorities about what is permitted in schools by way of discussion on such matters. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary recognised that in his announcement about Education Scotland making further guidance available. We agreed with the Deputy First Minister when he said to the committee that no aspect of the education system should prevent young people from reaching a fair and dispassionate understanding of the political process and their choices. I am sure that what he has announced today will help to ensure that the relevant education authorities support the discussion of election issues in schools and colleges across Scotland.
The second key issue that I will raise is data protection, which is very important. The inclusion on the electoral register of people who are under the age of 16 brings with it matters of data and child protection. The committee wanted to be sure that personal information that is held on the electoral register would be available only to electoral registration officers and their staff. The committee heard evidence from the Deputy First Minister, the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office on the issue. As a result, we are confident that processes will be put in place to safeguard information about younger voters. I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister clarified the practical point about the selection of juries during his opening speech.
The final key issue that the committee highlighted in its report and which other speakers might bring up is whether young offenders should be allowed to vote. As drafted, the bill does not amend section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. That can be achieved only by legislation that is enacted at Westminster, so convicted persons in penal institutions, including those who are under 18, will not be able to vote in future Scottish Parliament elections. We received written evidence on the point from the Law Society of Scotland and the Howard League. I reiterate the committee’s view that whether a provision is within the Parliament’s legislative competence is solely a matter for the courts but, in light of the Presiding Officer’s opinion on legislative competence and the Deputy First Minister’s response during our committee’s proceedings, we are satisfied to proceed with scrutiny at this stage.
I must point out briefly that, although the bill allows 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament, it does not allow them to vote in elections to Westminster, and I understand that they will not be allowed to vote in an in/out referendum on the European Union. Although this is not strictly an issue for the debate on the bill, I find it ironic that we are set to pass the bill at stage 1 while, elsewhere, a bill is being published in which the franchise will not be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
I am pleased and honoured to recommend that the Parliament should agree to the bill at stage 1 and take the next step in permitting young people in Scotland to continue to exercise the democratic rights that we in this Parliament trust them with. I sometimes think that, when we do our job in this Parliament, we get so involved in the detail that we do not always recognise that we are making history, but that is exactly what we will do at 5 o’clock if the Parliament votes to pass the bill at stage 1 and agrees to the principle of 16 and 17-year-olds voting in future Scottish Parliament and local government elections.
15:31
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and intend to follow the example set by the cabinet secretary and the committee convener in striving for brevity.
Giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds has been a long-standing ambition of many people in the chamber, and I am very pleased that we are taking steps to extend the franchise not only for Scottish Parliament elections but for local government elections, by-elections and elections to public bodies such as the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority—and I note that the national park covers areas in my constituency and Bruce Crawford’s.
To be honest, I think that this is a no-brainer in policy terms on two counts. First, we need only think back to the debate during the independence referendum and the energy, interest and sheer dynamism that 16 and 17-year-olds brought to it. That shows exactly why they should be allowed to vote. Young people in schools across Dumbarton, the Vale of Leven and Helensburgh took part in debates in the classroom, at home with family and with friends on Facebook and other social media. I often thought that they were the most educated section of the electorate, and they asked the hardest and most searching questions. As a result, it is only right for their voice to be heard in next year’s Scottish Parliament elections. Indeed, I believe that no debate about the future of our country should take place without the future of our country being involved. Secondly, there is something to be said for the view that anyone who is old enough to pay income tax is old enough to have a say in how that tax is spent.
With regard to the committee’s stage 1 report, I thank the members and clerks for their effective scrutiny, which has allowed us to get to this stage 1 debate. I find little to disagree with in the report’s recommendations, and I note that, in the short time available to him in his opening speech, the cabinet secretary addressed many, if not all, of those recommendations. However, I will in the interests of time touch on one area that the committee highlighted: the question of how we register attainers—in other words, those young people under the age of 16 who might because of the election’s timing appear on the register in advance of their 16th birthday. For the referendum, there was a separate register of young voters. There will be no need to create such a register for future elections.
That said, there is a note of concern about making public, even in restricted circumstances, the details of any person under 16. The helpful provision in the bill is that there will be a prohibition on disclosure, except when the registers are supplied to candidates in advance of the election. Those registers will therefore contain data on those under 16. From an election point of view, that is necessary for candidates and their teams to be able to contact all the electors, but we need to assure ourselves that child protection professionals have no concerns. Obviously, there are sensitivities about making public any data on those under 16; indeed, those sensitivities were first considered in the pilot elections to health boards and then in the referendum vote, but the proposals in the bill are slightly different from both of those. I know that a privacy impact assessment has been carried out, which is very useful, but it would benefit all of us if these provisions could be checked again with appropriate child protection professionals.
Turning to consultation with young people, I commend the Parliament’s infographic summarising the results of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s survey of 16 and 17-year-olds, because the simplicity with which it reveals the data is wonderful. A staggering 85 per cent thought that it was right for 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the referendum—I suspect that 100 per cent of members agree that that was right—44 per cent thought that they were well informed, 30 per cent thought that they were quite well informed, 80 per cent watched at least one of the televised debates and 63 per cent discussed the referendum online. Those and all the other statistics that were highlighted by Bruce Crawford show that young people were very engaged during the entire process.
I want to share with the chamber the views of two young constituents who are active in our local community. One is Stephanie Thomas, who is soon to be the member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for Helensburgh and Lomond, and the other is Alex Robertson, who will be taking up her post as MSYP for Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven in the summer. Members may recall that, although MSYPs are probably the youngest democratic voice in Scottish politics, the Scottish Youth Parliament is older than the Scottish Parliament by one day—it opened one day before the members of the Scottish Parliament met for the first time in 1999.
Here is what Stephanie Thomas had to say:
“I definitely think that it would be a good idea to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote. It will get them more involved in politics and let them make choices on things that affect them... With the education that you gain now you know how to vote and also how the voting systems work but by the time you turn 18 you have then forgotten most of the stuff you learnt.”
Alex Robertson told me:
“I feel as a 16 year old myself that having a say in my future is a very important thing. At 16, a young person is allowed by law to make many complex decisions such as getting married or leaving school to enter into further education or jobs. I feel that it is impossible to justify the exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from the right to vote when we are already able to take on a wide range of responsibilities.”
She continued:
“I also believe that including 16 and 17 year olds in voting will help to engage them into our expanding democracy. In the Scottish Youth Parliament elections in March this year, 70,000 young people aged 12-25 voted to elect their local MSYP. This itself demonstrates that young people, when given the chance to vote are passionate about having a voice in matters that have an effect on them not only at a local level but at a national level too."
I could not have put it any better myself.
Labour members are happy to support the bill to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.
15:37
I begin by commending the Presiding Officer for the action that she took earlier to ensure that the business that preceded this debate was given adequate time.
The Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill is important and we should give it due reverence. However, given the degree of agreement that exists between the parties, perhaps there will be less argument today than we have seen on some other subjects recently.
The Scottish Conservative Party opposed the extension of the franchise of 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill last year. We had a number of reasons for doing that, some of which still concern us today. However, the experience of seeing how 16 and 17-year-olds contributed to the debate, participated in the activities that went on during the referendum campaign and then came out in large numbers to vote on both sides indicates the willingness of that age group to participate in our electoral process.
If we look carefully, there is a huge opportunity to engage young people at a stage at which they will be enthused by politics so that they continue to participate in the electoral process as they get older. That contrasts with the situation in some places, including south of the border perhaps, where young voters are reluctant to become involved even at the age of 18 and vote in much smaller numbers until they are significantly older.
However, there are a number of inconsistencies that need to be addressed. In the Parliament we often talk about the appropriate age for individuals to be given certain responsibilities. It is easy to blame the Government for inconsistency, but it is something that any Government could be blamed for, because arguments are always being made for increasing age limits, for example to 21 for buying alcohol in an off-licence, at the same time as we are talking about reducing the voting age to 16. Perhaps as we go forward, beyond the legislation, we should take a more coherent attitude to how we give responsibility to young people. I always take the view that encouraging young people to take responsibility early is the best way to make them responsible citizens.
Concerns that the Conservatives expressed previously have been addressed in the processes of preparing the bill and analysing it at stage 1.
There are two diametrically opposing needs when we take young people on to the register: the need to have transparency—to know that everything is fair and above board—and the equally or perhaps more important need to ensure that the identities of young people and information about them are appropriately protected. The bill does a great deal of work to ensure that those who are taken on to the register before the age of 16 will be given appropriate protection.
In the cabinet secretary’s opening speech we heard that progress is being made on some key issues. Issues of looked-after children and care leavers are vital, and I am delighted to hear that they are being addressed. Data protection will be key.
One of my biggest concerns, which has been discussed by a number of people already, is how education—our schools and colleges—will take responsibility for political and electoral discourse during future elections. It is my experience that, in the past, it was not unusual for a school to invite candidates at election time to address a cross-section of classes. However, that was at a time when fewer children stayed on at school until the age of 18 and very few had a vote while they were at school. The fact that most of our young people now stay on later in the education system and will have a vote as early as 16 means that real political campaigning could be taken into our schools for the first time.
To return to my experience of the referendum campaign, I was particularly disappointed by some of the decisions that were made about the involvement of schools in Aberdeenshire. Schools were involved in the process at a very early stage, a year before the referendum took place, but in the latter days of that campaign, just as young people were becoming enthused, the school authorities appeared to clamp down on any engagement.
There is always a legitimate concern that people in positions of responsibility in our schools might somehow abuse their position for political gain. That has never happened in my experience as either a pupil or a parent. In fact, I have perhaps mentioned that the two ladies who inspired me to become involved in politics were teachers at my secondary school. They are now enjoying their retirement in a slightly heartbroken way, because they were both paid-up members of the Labour Party, I believe. They taught me not what to think but how to think.
I believe that the bill is vital. It is at the leading edge of these decision-making processes. We will be making history when we invite 16 and 17-year-olds to participate in the election for this chamber next year. The experience of the referendum has taken me and one or two other members in the chamber to a place where we are comfortable with engaging with younger people in the electoral process and I look forward to a chamber that is elected by an electorate that includes everyone in Scotland from the age of 16 up. I hope that it will be a better political environment as a result.
15:44
I am very pleased to take part in the debate and I will focus on the public awareness campaigns in schools, which have been mentioned already. I will refer to evidence that we took during our scrutiny of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill. I asked Bruce Robertson, representative of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, about discussions about the referendum in personal and social education and modern studies classes. He said:
“I do not want to get into the technicalities of the curriculum. Not every school offers modern studies, so we need to ensure that there are opportunities in every secondary school’s curriculum. That is where work in collaboration across the 32 education authorities and with School Leaders Scotland, which is the association of secondary headteachers, will enable people clearly to understand what is happening. That is what we all aspire to. We cannot have a situation in which a set of children in Helensburgh has an opportunity to engage that is very different from the opportunity that children in Helmsdale get.”
Mary Pitcaithly, wearing her hat as a council chief executive, agreed that she would be interested to ensure that the guidance was consulted on and said that she would
“expect schools to use the material that is made available”.—[Official Report, Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, 21 March 2013; c 291.]
Although I am delighted that the Deputy First Minister has talked about that in relation to this bill, it is clear that Bruce Robertson’s advice was not adhered to in the referendum campaign, which left many school pupils at a great disadvantage.
The committee’s report recommended that
“Education Scotland should review and update its guidance in order to ensure consistency in this area, in the context of the extension of the franchise to a much larger number of school pupils, including the types of activities that can be permitted in schools as best practice, during any period of ‘purdah’. Such guidance should be communicated to all local authorities and all schools.”
That is key to ensuring that there is no risk aversion in schools. The educative role of teachers will not be breached but enhanced. I want to ensure that people understand that their role is not to clamp down on debate but to increase it, and to increase participation.
In Alness academy, near to where I live, 12-year-olds in the debating society were prevented from debating the subject in hand. It is an example of risk aversion among headteachers and, possibly, among local authorities. The evidence that we received when we asked local authorities about their guidance led us into a maze of gobbledygook. We found that many children were denied the right to take part in debates, which is why I welcome the role that has been given to Education Scotland and the fact that we will have a chance, at last, to set a new standard in our schools for awareness raising about campaigns.
I am delighted that MSPs from across party lines voted overwhelmingly in favour of extending the right to vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections to include 16 and 17-year-olds. One of the greatest achievements of last year’s independence referendum was that it extended the franchise to young adults. As many members have said, young people grasped with both hands the opportunity to become involved in the democratic process. This bill embeds their right to vote in Scotland’s national and local elections. I welcome this move, which, as Bruce Crawford said, is historic.
15:48
When we debated the right to vote in the referendum, I said then that the right to vote should be extended to 16-year-olds in all elections. Any doubt about extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds was surely put to bed when their vote helped to deliver a turnout of nearly 85 per cent. That showed that they had motivation and maturity and knew that their vote would and could change things.
If we have confidence in young people, surely we can trust them to take part in electing a Government for five years.
Mr Pentland, I ask you to move your microphone round slightly. I am not sure whether the volume is lower this afternoon, but I am having trouble hearing you.
To argue against that would be out of sync with what happens in other areas where young people are considered sufficiently mature to make up their own minds. They can join the army, they can get married, they can work full time and they can even fly a glider, so it is absurd to exclude 16 and 17-year-olds from voting.
Of course, we might also need to review what else young people can and cannot do at particular ages for the sake of consistency, but that is a discussion for another day—it is a discussion that they may end up having a say in, if we agree to the bill. I can see that it would be quite tempting to seek the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds by promising them more rights to go alongside the franchise.
During the referendum campaign, I visited schools, including St Aidan’s high school, where I participated in a hustings with Alex Neil and Margaret Mitchell. Everyone was very well behaved, even without Glenn Campbell to keep us in order.
During that campaign, I met many young voters from all parties, some of whom took the next step and became energetic and enthusiastic participants in leafleting, canvassing and street campaigning. That enthusiasm needs to be harnessed and maintained, and I hope that extending the franchise for the Scottish elections will help to do that.
The other side of the coin, however, was the real eye-opener, as young voters witnessed the ugliness associated with the campaign: posters being trashed, people being followed by people with cameras, and physical and verbal intimidation. The social media debate was often not much better; sometimes it was disgustingly worse, which was not the best advert for political involvement. If we want young people to develop a lifelong commitment to democratic debate based on political principle, we need to strive for higher standards of behaviour and greater respect among the so-called grown-ups, who should know better.
Many technical aspects of the bill will be reviewed in more detail as the bill progresses through Parliament. One of the most important aspects is the mechanism for ensuring that young people are registered to vote. I know that a large percentage of eligible voters under 18 were successfully included on the register for the election. That was no doubt helped by the inclusion on the register of attainers—young people who could become eligible to vote while the register was current.
Similarly, if we agree to lower the franchise age, we will need to ensure that young attainers aged 14 and 15 are included on the register. The bill therefore includes provisions that will allow electoral registration officers to access education records. That will require consideration of how the system works in conjunction with other legislation that is designed to protect the interests of those under 16.
In addition to changes that may result from lowering the franchise age, there are of course other changes to registration that are being brought into operation this year. The bill has technical provisions that are made with those issues in mind, but those provisions must be subject to thorough scrutiny to ensure that they are truly fit for purpose.
This is the final stage of a long journey for the minimum voting age, which has travelled from being 21—or 30 for women when they first got the vote—via the reduction to 18 in 1970. At each stage, voices have been raised about the extension of the franchise but time has settled those arguments. I cannot see us going further than 16, but I suspect that adopting that voting age for other elections is just a matter of time.
We are blazing a trail with 16 and 17-year-olds voting in Scottish elections. It is a significant step forward for our democracy, and one that I hope paves the way for the UK to follow suit.
15:53
I note John Pentland and Jackie Baillie’s concerns about the vulnerability of attainers in going on to the register. The issue of extending the franchise extensively is one that some of us who are on the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee looked at when that committee was the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee.
The Scottish Government’s view is that the bill is different from the referendum legislation because of the order made under sections 30 and 63, which allows flexibility in the approach that can be taken, as detailed in the committee’s report. The experts who have given evidence did not seem to disagree with that view in any way. However, I concede that the issue is so important that there is no harm in looking at it again.
Ms Fabiani, can I stop you for a second? I am going to ask broadcasting staff whether they can consider turning up the microphones slightly. I do not usually have an issue with hearing you in the chamber—
Thanks very much, Presiding Officer.
—but I am afraid that this afternoon I do.
Would you like me to yell, Presiding Officer?
That is better. Thank you.
Okay. You threw me there.
I really enjoyed the scrutiny this time round, because it was underpinned by absolute joy that we were extending the franchise beyond the referendum to Scottish Parliament elections. To follow on from what John Pentland said, I hope that we can extend it in all elections sooner rather than later.
The committee’s report says:
“The key finding from the Committee’s discussions with first-time voters was that the pupils believed they had shown they were fully capable of making an informed decision at the Independence Referendum and ... agreed that the franchise should be extended to allow them to vote in future Scottish Parliament elections.”
That is really important. It was absolutely wonderful to hear about their knowledge and confidence from many young people who gave evidence to us.
The convener of the committee, Bruce Crawford, mentioned one of the committee’s studies, but we can look beyond that to other studies that have been carried out. In February 2015, 70 per cent of respondents in Scotland to a BBC survey believed that it was important to vote, and 67 per cent of respondents in Scotland agreed that politics was an effective way to make a difference to the country. Those figures were the highest in any part of the UK. I think that that was a direct result of people, but particularly young people, becoming engaged in the referendum process.
I have four senior schools in my East Kilbride constituency—Calderglen high school, Duncanrig secondary school, St Andrew’s and St Bride’s high school, and Sanderson high school—and I have been fascinated by the very articulate, sensible and thoughtful way that young people, not just those who are 16 or over, but those going into senior school and even those in some primary schools, can engage and understand the issues. They want to be part of where their country is moving forward to. That is extremely important.
For me, the best of all the evidence that we received when the committee discussed those issues came from Louise Cameron, the chair of the board of trustees at the Scottish Youth Parliament. It was lovely. She said of the referendum vote:
“we ... were so happy that the vote was extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. It is even better that it will be extended ... in all future Scottish elections ... getting the chance to vote in future elections is such a great opportunity, because it really does encourage political participation among young people.”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 23 April 2015; c 16.]
Some might say, “Oh, yes, young people would say that.” However, that evidence is backed up by academics, including Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh, who made it very clear that, although
“The Referendum was a special occasion”,
the long-term engagement from having engaged in that special occasion is marked.
Dr Eichhorn also made it very plain that the issues that Rob Gibson spoke about are extremely important. We found disparities in how different local authorities applied the rules. John Pentland said that North Lanarkshire Council allowed politicians into schools, but that did not happen in South Lanarkshire. There was just one big debate, which all the schools in South Lanarkshire were allowed to send a few representatives along to. That was not good enough. It is good that everyone who knows best has come forward and said that national guidance would be the best way forward. I urge everyone to engage with that as far as possible to ensure that we extend not just the franchise to our young people, but the right to be properly and well informed.
15:59
The Scottish Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for votes at 16. We are delighted at the cross-party consensus that has emerged on the issue, and we will, of course, support the bill at decision time.
Given the chance to vote for the first time, young people undoubtedly embraced the opportunities that the independence referendum presented, and young people on both sides spoke eloquently at public meetings and joined us all on the campaign trail. Schools throughout my North East Scotland region held hotly contested mock referendums, but thousands of pupils were also able to take part for real. I know that not all local authorities allowed such activity, so I welcome the committee’s recommendation that Education Scotland should review and update its guidance to ensure that there is more participation in debate.
Having spoken to young people on the doorstep, it was evident to me that they were among the best informed and most engaged of the electorate. I was really heartened to see them stride into the polling stations with a real sense of purpose—I have never seen anything quite like it in my 20 or so years of involvement in politics.
We must ensure that young people’s appetite to be involved and their palpable excitement at casting their vote are not a one-off. Of course it is incumbent on us to help sustain their interest in how our country is run, from local council chambers to Westminster. I am hopeful that the bill will act as a catalyst for wider reform, not just in Scotland but across the UK.
I never doubted the ability of young people to make informed decisions; if anybody did, they should doubt it no longer. At 16, young people can join the forces, get married and, crucially, pay taxes. If a Government can take their earnings, it should also accept their vote. Civic responsibilities should be balanced with civic rights.
I am proud that Liberal Democrats played a key role in our reaching this point. It was, of course, Liberal Democrats in the UK Government who delivered the provision that allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum through the Edinburgh agreement. We ensured that the devolution of the powers that members are discussing today was fast tracked so that, from next May, young people can have a say in who represents them.
The vote later today is an important step, but I am also under no illusions: there are young people who will continue to be disengaged and disillusioned with politics, parties and politicians—young people who do not believe that they are represented—and we will need to find other ways, aside from lowering the voting age, to address that apathy and strengthen our democracy.
I appreciate that the scope of the bill is tight. However, it is important to note that it will not grant every 16 and 17-year-old the vote. As the committee’s report highlights, it does not amend section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and it is regrettable that around 100 young people in Cornton Vale, Polmont and HMP Grampian will remain disenfranchised.
Members might recall my attempt to extend the referendum franchise to some short-term prisoners, which was blocked by this Government. I have to say that I was therefore surprised yesterday to find an ally in the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill. In the latest of a string of crises of conscience, he reportedly told a newspaper that it was “shameful” of the SNP to continue to deny prisoners the vote. He said that the party could no longer hide behind the franchise being reserved to Westminster.
Why did Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Government not extend the franchise when they could have done? According to Mr MacAskill, it was for fear of negative headlines in the right-wing press, or, as he put it, fear of “needless distractions” that might damage the campaign for independence. The Scottish Government-backed blanket ban on prisoner voting is not legal, fair or progressive. I look forward to the day when that matter is resolved.
The importance of 16 and 17-year-olds to our society is finally being properly recognised. Today we can celebrate the next step towards giving thousands of young people the opportunity to vote in elections to this Parliament.
16:03
I welcome the debate and I look forward to voting for the bill at 5 pm this evening. The key provision in the bill is to lower the voting age to allow 16 and 17-year-olds full representation in democracy in Scotland.
I have been having this discussion with my daughter and I have been explaining to her what we are trying to do. She is a wee bit disappointed that she will not get a chance to vote for her father next year, but at the moment she is only eight—she will be nine next year. I have explained to her that it might take a bit longer for people of her age to get to vote—maybe another 40, 50, 60 or 70 years. We will see how that progresses.
I remind the member that one of the things that came out of the research that was done in advance of the bill was that children do not necessarily follow their parents in their voting intentions.
I know that I have not followed my mother’s voting intentions, but I am sure that my daughter will follow her father’s.
The committee took evidence from various respondents as well as conducting the online survey, as we have heard. There was overwhelming support for extending the franchise to younger voters.
The online survey that our committee undertook across Scotland asked 16 and 17-year-olds who had participated in the independence referendum for their views on, and experience of, voting in the referendum. As the committee convener said earlier, we received more than 1,000 responses to the survey, with 85 per cent agreeing that it was right to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum and 79 per cent agreeing that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in elections for the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and local authorities. The results from the online survey also highlighted that nearly 36 per cent of respondents had campaigned for either side of the referendum debate and one in four had actually joined a political party. I do not think that anyone could argue that that did not present a positive case for extending the franchise for the people of Scotland.
The level of engagement by younger people in politics, particularly in Scotland, was also seen in a survey by BBC Newsbeat that was conducted in February 2015. The survey found that, following the referendum, 18 to 24-year-olds in Scotland were more politically engaged than young people in any other nation or region of the UK. It highlighted that 70 per cent of respondents in Scotland believed that it is important to vote, which was the highest percentage of any region or nation in the UK; that 67 per cent of respondents in Scotland agreed that
“politics is an effective way to make a difference to the country”,
which was also the highest percentage of any region or nation; and that 76 per cent of respondents in Scotland agreed that
“voting is an important part of being involved in society”,
which, again, was the highest percentage of any region or nation.
Those two surveys highlight the interest of, and even the demand from, younger voters to get engaged in electoral politics. Almost 110,000 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote in the independence referendum and, according to an Electoral Commission survey, 75 per cent of those young people voted, with 97 per cent of those who reported voting saying that they would vote again.
Support for the change in the franchise that we are considering was obvious from the evidence that the committee received from a number of people who responded as individuals or as representatives of a range of organisations. My colleague Linda Fabiani touched on the views of Louise Cameron, from the Scottish Youth Parliament, so I will not go over that evidence again. However, the committee also heard evidence from YouthLink Scotland, which stated that the bill addresses the inequality that young people aged 16 and 17 have historically faced in terms of the discrepancy between their democratic rights and their responsibilities—as we know, 16 and 17-year-olds can join the armed forces, enter employment, be taxed, get married and drive a car but have been deemed too immature to cast a vote in an election.
Through the independence referendum, we have experienced in Scotland the blossoming of a new political generation as younger voters have become engaged not just in voting but in being active in politics. It is therefore unfortunate that, as well as not having the opportunity to vote in the recent UK general election, 16 and 17-year-olds will not be allowed to take part in the EU referendum. I hope that that situation will change in the future and I urge the Conservative members in this chamber to talk to their colleagues at Westminster about extending the franchise for the upcoming EU referendum.
I whole-heartedly welcome the key findings from the committee’s discussions with first-time voters who were school pupils: they believed that they had shown that they were fully capable of making an informed decision in the independence referendum, and a significant majority agreed that the franchise should be extended to allow them—
Mr McMillan, you need to close, please.
—to vote in future Scottish parliamentary and local elections.
Many thanks. I ask members to keep to five minutes, please.
16:08
I welcome this important bill and the beneficial consequences that I think will flow from it in terms of empowering young people and increasing their engagement in politics. I am sure that all in the chamber were hugely encouraged by the level of interest and engagement that we saw from young people during the referendum. I am equally sure that we all took part in meetings with young people and were impressed by their level of knowledge and questioning, which was at least the equal of that of older people. We now have an opportunity to ensure that that participation lasts and becomes a salient feature of our political culture.
I am glad that that reasoning is now widely shared among the political parties. The Labour Party committed to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds across the board in its recent election manifesto and the SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats adopted that policy at an earlier time. I think that all those parties understand the positive consequences that giving the vote to those young people could have for tackling the disillusionment that many young people feel when it comes to politics. I regret that the current UK Government has not accepted that position for elections to its Parliament, as well as more immediately for the forthcoming EU referendum—obviously I hope that it will change its mind.
We know that some people are still sceptical about this issue, whether in Scotland or further afield, and I ask them to reflect on two points. The first concerns a piece of incontrovertible evidence, because we should listen to the voices of the young people who voted in September, and hear the effect that inclusion in that referendum had on that generation of voters. Bruce Crawford and Jackie Baillie have referred to some of that evidence, and I will also mention it in a moment. The second point that I hope those who are sceptical about the bill and similar proposals will bear in mind is that such a measure could have positive outcomes, not just for political knowledge and civic participation, but for our education system. I will come on to those points if I have time.
I will not mention the figures that have already been cited from the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s survey, although I commend the committee on that work, as well as the report more generally. Some 92 per cent of the young people surveyed voted in the referendum—a significant turnout by any standards—and 840 of the voters felt that it was easy or quite easy to vote. Forty-four per cent of young voters felt well informed about the major issues involved in the referendum debate, with almost 30 per cent feeling quite well informed—I think that means even better informed. That is a large majority of the young voting demographic who stated that they had done the reading, taken on board the messages, and made an informed choice.
Reading into the small detail of voter engagement, I see that 16 to 18-year-olds went to a variety of sources for information, with 68 per cent reading official campaign materials online or via social media, and 65.5 per cent using traditional media. The general conclusion I would draw from that is that young people took the issue very seriously and made sure that they were very well informed. That is an incredible legacy, as well as an opportunity to learn how young people interact with contemporary politics—some of us are trying to catch up with our use of social media and other things.
My second persuasive argument for lowering the voting age is that it could provide a catalyst for updating political education in our schools, and the curriculum could benefit from the kind of lessons in citizenship and civic power that may not have been afforded to many of us older voters. In the Democratic Audit UK report, “Should the UK lower the voting age to 16?”, research associates Richard Berry and Sean Kippin made clear that lowering the voting age is an important part of the solution to disillusionment and a kind of politics that is done to, rather than done with, citizens. They made clear that it is not the only answer to the problem, but it is an important part of the debate. The committee made recommendations on that matter, and I heard what the cabinet secretary said. I think that I would prefer to have a more radical development of curriculum for excellence in order to ensure that people of 16 and 17 are extremely well informed with regard to the voting that they would be entitled to do.
During the general election—I am sorry to mention that twice in one speech—Ed Miliband, and Labour more generally, talked about a redesigned curriculum to prepare 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. Obviously, that applied to England rather than Scotland, but I hope that curriculum for excellence will take the opportunity, in a Scottish context, to develop political and civic participation as part of this process.
16:13
It strikes me that referenda are a bit like buses: there are none for ages then, suddenly, there are two in a close period of time. Scotland is, perhaps, at the vanguard of a yes/no voting strategy. In our referendum, we recognised the importance of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to express a view on their future, and more than 109,000 registered to do just that—and, boy, did they give us their opinions. They also want to give us their opinions in next year’s Scottish elections.
People in that group, including my 16-year-old son, who became involved and engaged in politics, were rightly frustrated at being denied the opportunity to vote in the Westminster elections. They are to be denied it again in the EU referendum, unless the combined resources of our Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat colleagues and, I hope, some of our Conservative colleagues, realise an amendment to change that.
Voting structures, like democracy itself, need to evolve and change to reflect the needs of society. We have moved on from a time when only the landed gentry could vote, women were excluded and the poor had no political voice at all. I welcome my Conservative colleagues’ conversion to supporting the bill. Maybe they will encourage some of their colleagues at Westminster on the issue.
One of the fundamental principles of the Scottish Parliament is that of equality. Our hybrid system, with constituency and list votes, may have some issues, but most people agree that it is a far better option than first past the post. However, no system is unbreakable and no democracy can be unaccountable. Change that improves access and engagement in political life has to be a big positive.
People in Scotland have learned that they have a voice, and they have used it. They have learned that they can genuinely make a difference to the future of their country. By “people”, I mean everyone with a critical opinion, including 16 and 17-year-olds. Teenagers have a fundamental right to express their views and opine about their future. Who owns the future? Who will make the money, pay the pensions for us, buy the houses, raise their families and acquire the skills to run a prosperous economy? The answer is obvious.
Way back in 1967, when Dr Winifred Ewing won her House of Commons seat in the constituency of Hamilton, which I now represent, she used her maiden speech to campaign for a lowering of the voting age to 16. We are still waiting for London to catch up, but we can be proud that, in Scotland, we are working to achieve that, with cross-party support. We look likely to achieve that aim within 15 years of our Parliament being set up. Why Westminster needs centuries to pass such fundamental legislation remains a bit of a mystery to me. I find it astonishing that Westminster did not give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in the previous century and that it plans to deny EU nationals the right to vote in the EU referendum.
For the moment at least, and while our MPs work for change at Westminster, we can lead from the front at our elections next year. Even the Smith commission, which was not renowned for its forward-thinking views on devolved powers, recognised that Scotland must have the right to give younger people the opportunity to vote.
I ask for that not just for my son—although, believe me, he is watching on the telly now to ensure that I ask on his behalf—but for all those young people who had the right to vote in the referendum. It is for all our sons and daughters in Scotland, so that they can lead the way not just in the independence referendum but in every election in which they have a stake. Let us encourage the political engagement that was so evident among Scottish young people in the referendum. Let us give them the right to express a view on the future of the Scottish Parliament, on their future and on the future for their children. I will support the bill at decision time tonight.
16:18
I whole-heartedly support the general principles of the bill. I acknowledge the work that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and its convener have done for the Parliament in seeing the bill on its way. It is an important move forward.
To one who is old enough to remember the heat that there used to be in the debate about whether we could trust our young people to make conscious political decisions, we seem very relaxed today. That applies even to our colleague from the Conservative Party who, through the benefit of his education, was led into politics. Although he almost breached consensus at one point, he saved the day with his summation of the benefits that can be achieved by involving our young people.
I welcome Mr Swinney’s acknowledgement of the sensitivities in relation to education and the part that schools will play. In that context, my experience with secondary schools in the south of Scotland showed that schools are capable of taking a sober approach to the topic of politics. It might benefit those who make decisions on the way forward to look at the experience of Stranraer academy, which played a substantial part in the project Parliament initiative that all parts of the Parliament fed into, whereby modern studies students learned about the Parliament’s democratic processes and hosted a debate in their school, to which each of the parties in the Parliament contributed. The debate was undoubtedly a challenging evening that showed that 16 and 17-year-olds are keen to play their part in Scottish politics and that they understand the role that politics plays in their day-to-day experience.
I reaffirm the commitment that Bruce Crawford made on his committee’s behalf to ensure that the safety of our young people is protected in the management of data. That is a serious issue, and I know that the Government will take seriously the mistakes that can be made. In this exciting time, we could overlook the needs of looked-after children, those who are in secure accommodation and those who have additional support needs. In preparing the way forward, we can sometimes be too glib in deciding how we might manage things on their behalf. We need to think soberly about their needs if we want to be genuinely able to say that there is social justice in Scotland and that we include people who are often forgotten and who are too often overlooked and left behind.
When we have made a commitment to engaging as widely as we can, we must take an extra step on behalf of young people who are not fortunate enough to have the support of their families around them, even though that will take time and might cause additional expense. If we are to bring with us those young people who, in many respects, are deprived of a modern way of life, we must give them the opportunity to become involved in politics and to understand the issues that we discuss in the Parliament and connect them with their experience of day-to-day life. Only by engaging with them in that fashion can we truly give them access to modern life and public life and allow them to feel that they are part of what we do in the Parliament.
I will make a point that has not yet been made and which relates to my experience. By engaging with young people of 16 and 17, we ensured—as a result of the pressure that they put on their parents—that their parents became involved in the political process again. In the south of Scotland, we found that young people forced their parents to come with them to the school to take part in the debate. That was a most invigorating experience, which I commend to my colleagues.
16:23
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. The current political re-engagement of many of the population that has been evident since the run-up to the independence referendum has resulted in a significant shift in attitudes to and interest in politics generally in Scotland. That change has been especially marked among 16 and 17-year-olds who, having been offered the prospect of making a decision on their future, developed a significant interest in politics the closer polling day came.
As other members have said, the online survey of 16 and 17-year-olds that the committee conducted found that 80 per cent of respondents watched at least one of the major televised debates, that 63 per cent found out more about politics and, most impressively, that 26 per cent joined a political party. That represents some evidence, at least, of how engaged young people were.
It is vital that we respond to that. As a result of the referendum, that engagement seems to have continued. In his written submission to the committee, Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh said that 63 per cent of 18 and 19-year-olds in Scotland—who would have been 16 and 17-year-olds during the referendum campaign—said that they were certain to vote in the 2015 general election, as opposed to only 27 per cent of 18 and 19-year-olds in England. In no other age group was the difference so substantial, which implies that there might be more than a general referendum effect, which we would have seen across all age groups.
By contrast, since the general election, Ipsos MORI has conducted a poll that suggests that, throughout the United Kingdom, only 43 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds voted, as opposed to three quarters of pensioners. I have not seen any Scottish breakdown, but it is clear that there is work to be done throughout the UK. Work by the Pew Research Center suggests that the gap between American youth turnout and overall turnout has changed little in 40 years whereas, in Britain, the gap has widened dramatically. That is clearly a cause for concern in the UK as a whole.
We live in an age in which one of the preferred public fora and means of communication is social media. As masters of that medium, 16 and 17-year-olds have potentially greater access to information than ever before. However, schools have an important part to play. As Bruce Adamson of the Scottish Child Law Centre said in his evidence to the committee, the state’s primary duty is to provide education for children. As Dr Jan Eichhorn said,
“Discussing political issues in schools increases students’ political confidence in ways nothing else does.”
We know how important it will be to ensure that such information—not propaganda, but informed guidance—is replicated in every school throughout Scotland.
Early engagement with politics and understanding of the political process is vital. It is only right that, when young people are expected to move on to the next stage in their lives—whether in education, an apprenticeship or full-time employment—we invite them to participate fully at the earliest opportunity in the democracy that we all value.
Research evidence from Norway and Austria suggests that 16 and 17-year-old first-time voters and people who vote in the first election in which they are eligible to vote are more likely to vote in the future. They get into the habit of voting and continue to do so. Therefore, it is important to get them into that habit at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the high turnout during the independence referendum and the slightly lesser turnout in the recent general election, which was still much better than that in 2010, gave us all some satisfaction in Scotland. Even in traditionally low-voting areas such as Glasgow North East, turnout improved considerably.
Under the new Conservative Westminster Government, we approach the prospect of a European Union referendum but, instead of embracing the gold standard for that referendum, we seek to exclude not only EU citizens such as my colleague Christian Allard but 16 and 17-year-olds. We are happy to allow citizens of Cyprus and Malta who are not long-term residents in the United Kingdom to vote, but not citizens of other EU states.
We are implementing the Smith commission’s recommendation on votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland, but Westminster is again behind the times. Westminster now includes Mhairi Black MP, the youngest member of that Parliament since 1667. I commend her fantastic achievement. If ever there were an example of how a young person can become involved in politics from the earliest opportunity, she is one. Of course, our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, joined the Scottish National Party at the age of 16.
It is clear that there is cross-party support for the bill. There is an air of inevitability about it, but we clearly have a bigger battle to win at Westminster. As we know, old habits die hard there. It would be good if the Scottish Parliament could encourage the 15, 16 and 17-year-olds of Scotland to use the time before the European Union Referendum Bill becomes law to let Westminster know loudly and clearly at every stage that it should think again. Let us progress the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill so that we can demonstrate to Westminster that we really do things better in Scotland.
16:28
I, too, thank our first-class clerks and well-informed witnesses and all who contributed to our stage 1 report on the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill.
The committee supports the general principles of the bill—principles that have long been part of Scottish Green Party policy. Just as last week’s debate on the draft clauses based on the Smith agreement was a result of the engagement that we witnessed in the referendum, this debate is an incredibly positive reflection of that increased political engagement and a concrete step towards making it possible for it to continue to its fullest extent in the act of voting for 16 and 17-year-olds.
The Scottish Youth Parliament campaigned for votes at 16 in the referendum, followed by all other elections and referenda. It is not alone. The votes at 16 campaign says:
“Since 1998 we’ve been calling for votes at 16, and last year’s indy ref was proof we’re ready.”
Who could argue with that? Even those who were previously unconvinced recognised the involvement of young people as appropriate, important and, quite frankly, right.
We experienced first hand the contribution that young people can make to the democratic process, and was it not inspiring? I am delighted that we are on the road to enabling 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authority elections. I have no doubt that, were the UK Government to pass similar legislation at Westminster, it, too, would witness the passion and dedication that come when young people are allowed to be fully involved in the democratic process and when they are given the right to vote.
Many believed, and now we all know, that democracy is better when young people are involved. When young people cannot vote, we squander energy and passion. Can we afford to do that at a time when politics is so poorly regarded and when we all too often have woefully low voter turnout?
Votes at 16 says:
“We want our political system to recognise the abilities of 16 year olds. To properly include us in our society and show us the trust and respect that society expects of us by giving us the right to vote.”
My committee colleagues agree that our evidence-taking session with the Scottish Youth Parliament, Young Scot and the National Union of Students Scotland was particularly lively, engaging and informative. Louise Cameron of the Scottish Youth Parliament was an inspirational witness. She pointed out that 16 and 17-year-olds challenged their families about not going to the ballot box. She said:
“Maybe parents or others who have been disengaged from the political system have had their engagement revitalised.”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 23 April 2015; c 30.]
There are those who still insist that young people are not equipped or well enough educated to vote. I disagree whole-heartedly, as do those colleagues who took part in debates where young people engaged and debated in an articulate, passionate and well-informed way.
We have heard in media debate this week about the need to extend the franchise for the proposed EU referendum. We know that young people are very well informed. They are able to access information and, indeed, have exposure to information that some older voters will never see. Social media are, as we have heard in this debate, transforming how we do many things, and their impact on politics and campaigning was clear to see in the referendum.
Many pupils benefited from taking part in fairly chaired debates with balanced panels. As colleagues have noted, that was not the case in every local authority, and action to overcome the reluctance to host such debates, which seemed to stem from concern about being partial, is essential. Bill Scott from Inclusion Scotland summed it up perfectly when he said:
“there is everything to gain from having national guidelines, because they could break down those barriers and encourage education authorities to take a risk. That risk is worth taking, because everybody has to take risks. One of the rites of passage of growing up is for young people to begin to make their own decisions and take chances. We need to allow people to make decisions for themselves rather than doing it for them.”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 23 April 2015; c 26.]
Absolutely. Curriculum for excellence aims to create confident individuals who are effective contributors and responsible citizens and who participate responsibly in political, economic, social and cultural life. Involvement in our democratic process is a perfect way to enable such development.
Louise Cameron noted that, although the school system this time missed some young people,
“practically everyone nowadays is on Facebook and Twitter, so that is a valuable way to catch people.”
She said that there was a
“hashtag on Twitter on the day before the referendum and the day of the referendum to encourage people to go to the ballot box, and it received huge publicity.”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 23 April 2015; c 26-7.]
With amendment, we can ensure a more equal playing field as the bill progresses.
The votes at 16 UK Facebook page says:
“The EU referendum will be a historic, once in a lifetime, vote. 16 and 17 yr olds took their right to vote in the Scottish referendum, with over 75% turnout. Now it is time for the government to give them a vote in the EU referendum.”
Westminster, I hope, is listening.
Our work on the bill is clearly the beginning and not the end of a process. The bill will be amended as it proceeds through Parliament. I hope that our experience in Scotland will demonstrate to those who still require convincing that the time has come to give all 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.
16:34
This has been a positive and interesting debate. I, too, thank the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee for its work in producing the stage 1 report on the bill.
There is nothing like the zeal of the convert, and my party has moved from an anxiety about the reduction in the voting age to enthusiasm in supporting it for the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. As many others have indicated, our view changed when we saw at first hand the levels of engagement, interest in and knowledge of the issues in the referendum debate, as was displayed so impressively by young people.
I was privileged to sit on the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, chaired by that parliamentary deity, Mr Bruce Crawford.
Oh, my!
Bruce Crawford rose—
A divine intervention?
I will allow a divine intervention from Mr Crawford.
I am just wondering whether, when Annabel Goldie is in the House of Lords, she might, given her new enthusiasm for votes at 16, table an amendment to the European Union Referendum Bill to allow that to happen there, too.
One step at a time, Mr Crawford. The change in my party’s attitude in this Parliament to reducing the voting age has been a very challenging experience for us to adjust to. Nonetheless, we adjust with pleasure.
On the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, we were able to explore thoroughly what a reduction in the voting age for the referendum might involve, what issues would arise and areas where we considered that care would be necessary. I hope that that exercise has been useful to the successor committee, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee.
I do not propose to dwell on the mechanics of creating a voting system for 16 and 17-year-olds. The system has been tried and tested, and I am sure that any lessons can be learned or necessary adjustments can be made.
The broader issue is how we inform young people of the issues on which they will be voting, bearing in mind that some of them will still be attending school. As other members have indicated, the balance to be struck is the ready provision of that information without veering into propaganda by local authorities, teachers or other school staff.
That is of particular importance if young people are to have the reassurance that, outwith the home, they can access such information, listen to debates or even organise and participate in debates themselves, thinking through the issues for themselves. I do not believe that it is for Governments to tell local authorities how to do their business, but some consistency of practice by local authorities is desirable.
I am indebted to the Scottish Parliament information centre for its excellent paper on the issue, entitled “Approaches of Local Authorities to the Scottish Independence Referendum and Schools”. I will quote from that paper. It found that, at top-line level, 25 authorities agreed
“a policy on whether and how discussion of the SIR was to be permitted or encouraged in schools”.
The SPICe paper goes on to note:
“Some authorities stated that their guidance had emphasised the importance of ... neutrality”,
that is,
“councils staff not wearing badges, symbols or emblems belonging to either of the campaigns or using slogans supporting one or other campaign ... ensuring that all council staff retained neutrality on all issues relating to the SIR ... emphasising the right of pupils to express their views freely.”
On more specific issues, almost all local authorities permitted, encouraged or actively supported schools to hold debates on the referendum. Aberdeen left the decision to individual schools, whereas other councils stated that debates were “not discouraged”. That was the position of East Renfrewshire Council—hardly a ringing encouragement to young people.
Only one local authority specifically said that debates on the referendum were not permitted in schools. That was Renfrewshire Council, in my home area, although it did organise four major
“hustings events at which parity of access to the new school aged voter constituency by Better Together and Yes Scotland was ensured.”
As other members have indicated, participants in such debates seemed varied. Sometimes they were local, and sometimes they were national politicians. Interestingly, North Lanarkshire and West Lothian discouraged such external participation, whereas Inverclyde supported it. Some local authorities permitted mock referenda, but Dundee City Council, for example, did not.
I give those illustrations, provided by the SPICe paper, mainly to indicate that there was a disparate approach. In fairness to local authorities, some of them may have felt nervous about permitting too much activity, fearing that they might breach election law or their obligations of neutrality. However, with one election experience of the reduced voting age behind us, it may be that those authorities will now feel more relaxed, observing what other authorities did. There are examples of good practice.
I hope that, in considering the guidelines, Education Scotland will have a look at the models contained in that SPICe analysis paper. I hope that local authorities can be innovative as we approach next year’s Scottish Parliament election. This is an exciting time for politics, which is heightened by the prospect of engaging thousands of new young voters in the electoral process. Our democracy in Scotland will be stimulated by their participation.
I have pleasure in confirming that my party will support the bill at stage 1.
16:40
Some new laws lead social change. The ban on smoking in public places that the Parliament enacted 10 years ago was a good example of that. Other new laws do not so much lead as follow, and this bill is an example of such a law. From today’s debate, it is clear that the time is indeed right. In some previous cases, extensions of the franchise have been bitterly contested, from votes for working men in the 19th century to votes for women in the 20th century.
Other changes, such as the extension of the franchise to 18-year-olds in 1969, quickly gained support because they reflected the spirit of the times. Before then, young people could not vote until they were 21, even though the school leaving age was lower than it is now. Extending the franchise to over-18s made sense in the 1960s because youth culture was emerging as it had never done before and young people’s access to education and knowledge was growing exponentially. Those young people of 1969 are now approaching the end of their working lives and, a generation later, the time has come for another change in the voting age.
A generation between changes in the voting age is long enough. It might also be the right length of time to leave between referendums on the same question, as the First Minister said not so long ago. The next referendum on Europe will take place 40 years after the previous one and is therefore a case in point.
The bill also raises some important questions to which answers need to be offered. A number of colleagues have mentioned looked-after children, young offenders and young people who have additional support needs. Protecting the privacy of 14 and 15-year-olds prior to their attaining the newly reduced voting age of 16 is clearly important. I was glad to hear the Deputy First Minister respond to the point about selection of jurors. There is no good reason why the date of attainment of 16 and 17-year-olds should not continue to appear in the electoral register as it does at present, even if and when the voting age is reduced to 16 across the board.
Of course, there is nothing uniquely Scottish about constitutional referendums or about votes at 16. The German Land of Lower Saxony can claim to have led the way on that. The Scottish angle has, of course, come out of last year’s referendum and the high levels of engagement among 16 and 17-year-olds in that referendum moved the debate on decisively.
A number of the other questions that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill are also significant. The introduction of individual electoral registration has ended the practice of a householder registering everyone in his or her household just at the point at which a larger number of younger household members will qualify to vote than ever before. That is inconvenient on one level, but it provides a double incentive to ensure that those who are entitled to register to vote are given every opportunity to do so. A falling level of voter registration would be disappointing in all age groups, but particularly if it happened among younger voters.
It is important to see in detail why the Scottish Government believes that there is no ambiguity around the registration deadline in the bill. I hope that Mr Swinney’s letter on that subject will be issued in advance of stage 2.
The independence referendum engaged young people from both sides of the debate and posed some new challenges for schools. Senior secondary school students were no longer confined to holding mock elections after they reach the age of 18 at some point in their final year. They were voting for real from fourth year onwards.
It is perhaps not surprising that schools and education authorities became anxious and dealt with the challenges in different ways. Teachers are also voters who form their own views, so schools realised that teachers could not be seen to influence how pupils chose to vote, but they also did not want to be seen to close down debate. The referendum was a one-off event but the bill turns that novel challenge from last September into a permanent feature of school life, which means that schools must accommodate the debate and discussions that go with any election campaign but they must do so in the right way.
Schools stand in loco parentis; they act for and in place of parents for the duration of the school day, and that relationship of trust between the school, the student and his or her family or carers applies at 16 or 17—or indeed 18—as well as at a younger age. That is the responsibility that lies with the school, and its role in this context is not just to provide instruction in how the system works or a forum for debate. It also has a particular duty to equip young people with the critical faculties that they will need to deal with the choices that they will face as independent adults. The ability to think for oneself matters to young people in all sorts of contexts, not least in evaluating and making judgments about things that are said in an election campaign.
John Swinney told the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee that young people should be enabled to reach
“a fair and dispassionate understanding of the political process and choices”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 30 April 2015; c 8.]
and I welcome the tone that he has taken in addressing these issues this afternoon. However, I am sure that he will agree that that must not mean giving political parties a platform in schools to make their case to an uncritical captive audience. It must mean teaching school students the skills that they need to ask the tough questions that they should ask of all concerned and the support that they need to do so with confidence. As Alison Johnstone said, democracy is not just about the right to vote; it is also about being able to make informed choices and having a culture of mutual tolerance of opposing views. Those are the values our schools should transmit, and the revised guidance that Education Scotland is to provide should support them in that work.
Today’s debate has, of course, gone beyond the terms of the bill, because the general principles of providing for votes at 16 can be applied to other Parliaments besides this one. Just as we had a referendum last year that made votes at 16 an established fact, so we will very soon have another referendum that will be just as significant for the younger generation. Ten years ago, Scotland’s devolved Parliament led the way on the smoking ban, and, with this bill, we will lead the way again on votes at 16.
The bill as it stands is not the last word on the subject, but it points the way forward. I have no doubt that, where this Parliament leads, others will follow.
I now call John Swinney. You have nine minutes or thereby, Mr Swinney.
16:46
Presiding Officer, Mr Macdonald—
Or perhaps 10.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Mr Macdonald just remarked that it would be unhealthy if debate took place without there being a tough and critical audience. I feel that I frequently face such audiences when I appear in the Parliament. However, today has been a slightly different occasion, with greater unity of opinion. Mr Crawford was absolutely correct to say, in a point echoed by Mr Pentland, that this is a moment of history in which Parliament is essentially regularising, for the purpose of our elections and local authority elections, the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the electoral process.
One of the most pleasant parts of the debate has been the enthusiasm that has been shown; indeed, Ms Goldie described the way in which Mr Johnstone expressed his opinion as the “zeal of the convert”. I unreservedly welcome that and I say formally to the Conservatives that I welcome their more positive and enthusiastic stance on the matter. It is to their credit that they have come to their conclusion having looked at the experience of the referendum. However, I felt that Mr Johnstone took things a bit far in speculating that the addition to the register of 16 and 17-year-olds might create better political times. If that was a note of optimism that all 16 and 17-year-olds might vote Scottish Conservative in future elections, I think that it was perhaps a heroic assumption, but I wish him well in pursuing that objective the length and breadth of Scotland.
As Alison McInnes pointed out, the provision of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds was part of the Edinburgh agreement, which I think she said was delivered by the Liberal Democrats. I am not sure where that leaves the Conservatives, who were her coalition partners until a few weeks ago, but the subject might still be too sore to talk about. Of course, the principal author of the agreement was the much-respected former secretary of state Michael Moore, who is a very fine individual. Indeed, I am sure that there are a few Liberal Democrats wishing that he had remained the Secretary of State for Scotland, given the current embarrassment of their most recent secretary of state.
Nonetheless, we welcome the co-operation of the UK Government that enabled us to undertake the exercise of extending the franchise in 2014 for the referendum and the platform that that created for the longer-term application of the provision.
Many members from across the political spectrum advanced a substantial point about the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds were able to participate in the Scottish referendum and will be able to participate in Scottish Parliament and local authority elections, but were excluded from participation in the Westminster election, and, it appears, will be excluded from the EU referendum.
That point was made strongly to me by a group of young people from Young Scot, some of whom had voted in the referendum last September but were unable to vote in the Westminster election a few weeks ago. It is an inconsistency that it would be best to resolve. My colleagues in Westminster will try to advance that argument, and I hope that we can make progress on it.
The cabinet secretary will be interested to know that our colleagues are advancing that argument as we speak. The UK Government has just published the European Union Referendum Bill, which excludes 16 and 17-year-olds as well as EU nationals. Will he impress on our Conservative colleagues the need to take the opportunity to push for an amendment to that bill?
That was the sense of my remarks a moment ago. I applaud the Conservative Party in Scotland for coming to the view that it has on the issue, and I hope that it is one that can be advanced. Perhaps Mr Johnstone has a direct line that he is about to tell me about.
I am afraid that I have no direct line. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is a certain symmetry in the fact that we are taking the opportunity to decide who will vote in the elections that elect the members of this chamber next year and that the House of Commons will decide who will vote in its referendum or future elections?
I accept the symmetry of the argument, but the arguments that have brought Mr Johnstone and Miss Goldie to the conclusion that they have reached about the welcome participation of 16 and 17-year-olds are just as compelling in relation to the UK general election or the EU referendum. I will leave them to advance those arguments.
Linda Fabiani made a substantial point about the fact that the participation of individuals in the referendum established in their minds the norm of participating in the democratic process. I am struck by some of the research that I have seen that suggests that the referendum was such a compelling debate for Scottish citizens that it activated many who had previously been alienated from the democratic process, reconnecting them to it. The fact that the turnout in Scotland was 85 per cent—a higher turnout than in any election in which I have been a participant—perhaps validates the point that the referendum reconnected individuals to the democratic process.
There are two specific questions that I want to address, the first of which relates to education. I sympathise with Rob Gibson’s points on that issue. There was a timidity among some in the local authority and education sectors around whether, by enabling the debate, they were somehow taking sides in it. Enabling the debate to happen, as long as it is balanced, is something to which no one should take exception. Miss Goldie’s explanation of the SPICe research on the variability of decision making around the country rather makes that point. I will reflect further on that in relation to the guidance that we believe would be appropriate. We should not be timid on that question, as long as the debate is balanced and objective.
Secondly, Jackie Baillie raised substantial issues about data protection and child protection. The reason why we are in a different situation from the referendum register is that we did not know that the referendum register was going to be a recurring register.
We have to be satisfied that, when information is gathered on the 14 and 15-year-olds who will be attainers on the register, there is absolute security in electoral registration offices around handling that information and ensuring that it is shared with nobody outwith the electoral registration process. However, when the register is shared for electoral purposes, there will be a moment when the names of individuals who are over 15 years and 46 weeks will be disclosed.
I will look again at all the provisions, given the issues that have been raised today, because we need to be absolutely certain that we are taking the right steps in that respect. I believe that extensive consultation has taken place with representatives of child protection organisations and electoral registration officers to ensure that those issues are properly addressed, but I do not in any way dispute their significance. I will look afresh at those questions before stage 2 to ensure that the legitimate points that Jackie Baillie and others have raised are properly addressed before then.
Comments have been made in the debate about the election as the MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South of Mhairi Black, a 20-year-old woman who has already made a strong, profound and distinctive contribution to our politics. That is indicative of the contribution that young people can make to the process, which was evidenced by the enthusiasm of young people to participate in the referendum. I saw some of that in my discussion with young people from Young Scot this morning, when young people came from all parts of the country to question me about the issues around the bill and to express their enthusiasm to be full, active participants in our country’s decision making. We should feel very privileged that we have young people with such aspirations to participate in our democracy, and we will take an important step in facilitating those aspirations when we pass the bill that is before Parliament today.
Previous
Historical Child Abuse