Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, I have much sympathy with both of the speeches we have heard so far. I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said, except to point out that my three year-old appears to have plenty of her own mind about her. One does not have to wait for young people to reach the age of 16 before that characteristic can be found. The question here is at what age should we transfer responsibility to young people. My argument for giving the vote to 16 year-olds is that we should be consistent and confer voting rights early rather than late. That would be consistent because an awful lot of responsibilities are landed on a young person’s shoulder at the age of 16. If we are going to pass over to them life-changing decisions about marriage, sex or joining the Armed Forces—decisions that have real consequences in their lives, not to speak of the right to leave home—then why should we deny them the right to vote? What is so dangerous and difficult about voting that puts it above those other decisions? I know that we are not going to carry the argument today, but I hope that it is a cause that we will continue to press whenever we get the opportunity. We ought to recognise the logic of our own position; if we are going to say that 18 is the age when people should vote, then we ought to be much more merciful to the young. We ought to be much more supportive of the young when it comes to other measures by which we place responsibility upon them and take responsibilities away from parents. So many things have happened in the past 10 years, while I have been in this place, that have taken 16 as the age—indeed, when it comes to criminal responsibility, down to 10, if I remember correctly—that voting is something that should come in early. It might even have some of the good consequences that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says it would. I have an amendment in this group, Amendment No. 54, which proposes that we should be able to elect 16 year-olds—not that they should be able to vote, but that we should be able to elect them. This follows an argument that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made in Committee and that my noble friend on the Front Bench made again today, particularly in relation to companies. Companies have the right to choose a 16 year-old. Therefore, it is alright to be a company director at 16—and, golly, think of the privileges, powers and responsibilities that come with being a company director. Companies would elect a 16 year-old because that particular 16 year-old has all the qualities needed to take on those responsibilities. In the sense of any substantial company, that is true, but you can get all the privileges that go with a company and being a company director by buying a company off the shelf for £100—let alone trading on eBay. You become entitled to limited liability and make yourself a company director on your 16th birthday. If that is not a level of responsibility greater than that required to vote then I do not know what is. First, I do not agree with the argument. But, secondly, if that is the argument that carries the day, then why not allow 16 year-olds to be elected? We all know that there are 16 year-olds out there who are quite capable of doing the job, so let us give them a chance.