Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said about Amendment No. 53, and with nothing that he said about Amendment No. 54. So that probably places me in reasonably good company. The noble Lord set out very well—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—the reasons why we are not minded at this point to support the amendments. I say that on the basis that the Government will keep the matter under review. These are important issues and I take nothing away from what has been said about young people. It does not mean that I do anything other than support the rational arguments that have been put forward for engaging with our young people. I declared my interest in Committee of having a 16 year-old. He is still 16. My daughter, who is 14, was very upset that I did not mention her. She wants me to make it clear that she sits on the St Albans Youth Council and considers that a very good way of voting to get the things that she thinks are important. They are not the same things that I think are important but, quite rightly and properly, they are important to her. I completely accept the need to ensure that we engage with young people. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a gorgeous three year-old. He has described the way in which she acts. I cannot think where she gets it from. The noble Lord will know exactly what I mean. We have to be clear about what messages we send from this debate and from the way in which we engage with our young people. We expect people who vote—and we are all guilty of this—to read the manifestos of the political parties in order to gain an understanding of what is being proposed, to understand what the differences are and to try to make rational and coherent judgments about what they are being asked to do—which is to choose the government of the day or the local government for their area. Many young people, as indeed the traditions of families demonstrate, will follow the family voting pattern, but people are increasingly making their own judgments. The points about single-issue campaigns are well made. Many young people find their way into the party political process via a single-issue campaign. This may lead them in one direction or another, and it may be an entirely different direction from that of their family. But we expect them to take care with our democracy and to behave appropriately and rationally. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned 16 year-olds when he referred to company law. There are particular 16 year-olds and particular 12 year-olds—there may even be particular three year-olds—to whom we could point and be quite confident that they would be able to exercise responsibility in that area. There are also particular 25 year-olds about whom we would not be confident. We have to make some kind of distinction. At the moment, after listening to public opinion, which is very clear on this subject—as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, unless you have got good reasons to ignore it, you should be mindful of it—and after listening to what the Electoral Commission has said, I think we are where we should be at this point in recognising that the age of 18 is appropriate for people to exercise their democratic vote. I absolutely agree that we need to engage young people throughout their lives so that they understand what citizenship and democracy are all about. They need to understand the benefits and rights of voting and how important it is that they should hang on to something so precious. I have no difficulty with that. But we have to make a judgment about when we can seriously expect people to make the kind of decisions that are so important to our democracy. As for the age of candidacy, I do not accept the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. What we have done in making the age of candidacy the same as the age of voting is right and proper and I do not want to see it reduced. The implications for candidates is that they could be elected and they could be expected to play a hugely important part in our democracy. Again, we have to be clear about when we believe that it is right and appropriate to put such a responsibility on a young person. I am not convinced by the noble Lord’s arguments. We should keep the situation under review. I am probably rehearsing the arguments from some years ago when the age was reduced from 21 to 18. There may be a familiarity in all of this. Of course we must keep looking very carefully. For my part, however, I think we have got it about right. I do not expect to have won over the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lucas, on this or, on candidacy, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It is not that I am unwilling to keep the matter under consideration; it is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, I believe we have got it right.