I am grateful for the invitation to appear before the committee. There is a brief PowerPoint presentation that should illuminate what the Youth Citizenship Commission in Britain attempted to achieve.
There has been a growing debate in Britain as to whether the voting age should be lowered to 16, part of a broader debate about youth non-participation in politics. The British Government issued a Green Paper in July 2007 that promised the establishment of a Youth Citizenship Commission. That commission reported to the Prime Minister and other Ministers in summer 2009. The terms of reference included a definition of citizenship for young people. There has been an ongoing debate in Britain about the concept of citizenship, which has formed a compulsory part of the school curriculum since 2002. We also wanted to look at how to increase young people's participation in politics more broadly — both formal, conventional politics and unconventional forms of politics. The element then that dominated media coverage was an examination of the lowering of the voting age to 16.
The reason the vote at 16 issue has been so vexed in Britain and elsewhere is the problem of diminished voting among the young. This was not always a problem. As recently as 1997 there was not a great deal of difference between the voting rates of 18-24 year olds and the broader population. At the last couple of elections in Britain, however, there has been a substantial drop in voting by 18-24 year olds to the point where it is only a minority taste, with only 37% of them voting at the last general election. Moreover, in terms of certainty to vote at the next election, the low figure for this age bracket indicates that increasingly they do not regard it as a civic duty while older people still do, particularly 65-74 year olds.
We summarised the problem as one of voter participation. For 18-24 year olds, participation is now 20% less than overall turnout, with not many absolutely certain to vote and few presenting their views through the formal political channels of local councillor or Member of Parliament. This is a problem because it reflects the issue of serial abstention — 80% of young people who did not vote in 2001 at the general election did not vote in 2005.
Why are young people being turned off by politics and what can be done about it? Part of the problem is that we wait too long to give people the vote. If we linked citizenship education better to the voting process, people would vote. If 16 year olds developed the habit, they would carry on voting through the rest of their lives — that was the argument put forward by the votes at 16 lobby. Increasingly, there was pressure for votes at 16 during the course of the commission's life. The list of parties in favour of voting at 16 in Britain includes the Labour Party, even though it established us, a commission, to look at this, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
This issue exercised much of the commission's time. It is fair to say we were divided on the issue of lowering the voting age. The key arguments of the voting at 16 lobby were that it is a breach of human rights not to permit voting at 16. That argument was rejected by the commission, partly because there are only seven countries in the world that permit voting at 16, Austria being one, which would mean 142 countries were in breach of human rights by not allowing votes at 16. We did not find that argument convincing and rejected it.
The second argument related to responsibilities at different ages. It was pointed out that it is possible to join the British armed forces at 16. That is true but it is not possible to see frontline service because the British Government is a signatory to the UN convention in this area. Parental permission is also required to enlist at 16. We did not see that as a convincing argument to lower the voting age.
A stronger argument by the votes at 16 lobby was that younger people must vote because of the imbalance caused by an ageing society. We felt that was a strong argument, with the electorate being dominated by the over 65s.
The next argument was that young people can work and pay tax. Again we did not regard that as convincing. The school leaving age is about to be raised in Britain to 18 and there are fewer people now working and paying tax at age 16 and 17 than ever in British history. We do not see it as a logical argument, therefore, for lowering the voting age.
The final argument from the votes at 16 lobby was that citizenship education ought to lead to voting. Undoubtedly that is a strong argument, there is citizenship education from age 11 and the Goldsmith commission last year recommended extending citizenship education to primary level. Therefore, it seemed perverse not to allow votes until 18, despite years of citizenship education. We felt that was a strong argument.
Public opinion, however, is divided and it would be interesting to see a comparison with the Republic of Ireland on the issue. In terms of who wants votes at 16, 16 and 17 year olds themselves in Britain want it, with 53% in favour, while a substantial minority, 40%, did not want the age to be lowered. Public opinion does not greatly assist us. Every age category above the age of 18 is opposed to lowering the voting age. The electoral commission conducted an investigation in 2004 and found that the population as a whole was satisfied with the voting age remaining at 18. Public opinion does not assist us in the sense that the beneficiaries of votes at 16 are in favour, although not overwhelmingly, while those 18 and over are opposed to the point where only 6% of over 65s are in favour of a reduction in the voting age.
Given this, what did the commission recommend? In some ways it can be argued this was a cop out but we wanted to start at first base. The first problem in Britain is not so much people voting or not voting, the problem with young people is that often they are not registered to vote. Of 16 and 17 year olds, 28% were not even put on the electoral register by their families and were not eligible to vote by dint of not being registered. A person is supposed to come on the electoral register at age 16 in readiness to vote at 18. We suggested that the method of electoral registration must change, with schools placing people on the electoral register as part of citizenship education, as part of a process accompanied by a ceremony if necessary. That was an important recommendation.
We argued that in the context of devolved power, Westminster should consider transferring the powers over the voting age to Scotland, Wales and the North of Ireland. Why should London decide the age at which people should vote? That would be useful beyond the devolved context because we would see if votes at 16 work. If a large number of young people take the opportunity to vote, the experiment could then be legitimately extended to general elections. There is a risk that we would be using Scotland, Wales and the North of Ireland as guinea pigs but it would be useful.
Part of the problem is that there are different ages of responsibility in so many areas. A person cannot buy cigarettes until he or she is 18, he or she can join the army at 16 but cannot see frontline service. We recommended that the Government review the age of responsibility across a range of areas, not just in terms of voting but more broadly.
In terms of the vote at 16, we recommend that devolved institutions should be able to decide their voting age. The biggest single problem at present is not voting at 16 but getting young people to register to vote. We need improved citizenship education in schools to give people the knowledge. Those 16 and 17 year old people who said they were against lowering the voting age said they did not feel the need to vote because they did not know enough about politics. Although we have produced a quite substantial vote at 16 report, the bigger report was more broadly based on how to improve young people's participation in politics beyond the voting age.
