18:06 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 3 agreed.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the two amendments in my name in this group were put down in the five working days we have had since Committee and I tabled them just to ensure that they were on the Marshalled List. Since then, my noble friend the Minister has very much met the concerns of these amendments, particularly in terms of the 10-week period for the regulations to come out leading up to the referendum day itself.
I also accept that the period of six weeks previous to that for the other regulations that have to be approved has proved to be rather too complicated, so I am basically happy with what my noble friend has done and I thank her for the amendment that she has brought forward, which meets the concerns. They were, of course, that until we had this provision in the Bill, the Government had the ability to call a referendum with 28 days’ notice, but now this will not be possible since we will have the 10-week period enshrined in the Bill itself. That is an important modification as far as we are concerned, and again I thank my noble friend for what she has done. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is in his place, but I am sure that he will be grateful to know that I am not going to speak any longer. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now. I have amendments in this group and I have spoken to noble Lords who have amendments in this group—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I apologise for not being able to mention the fact that I might intervene early to explain the Government’s position. It does not, of course, prevent me from answering questions later if noble Lords so wish.
In this group there are three areas on which the Government have carefully considered the views of Peers, as expressed in Committee, and have brought forward amendments in response. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton has kindly set out, we have sought where possible to respond entirely positively.
The Government’s position is that in order to ensure public confidence in the outcome of the referendum and an informed vote, it is essential that there is a referendum period of sufficient length to allow a full and thorough debate with appropriate controls on spending donations. It was never the Government’s intention to set a referendum period of less than 10 weeks. However, we listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Hamilton, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and others around the House on this matter and we agree with noble Lords that a 10-week minimum referendum period should be set out on the face of the Bill. That is the effect of government Amendment 9. I stress that it is a minimum period of 10 weeks.
I hope that all noble Lords will appreciate that this should deliver the intent of Amendments 8 and 7B. It also, I hope, provides a little extra clarity over the referendum period itself by making it absolutely clear that the referendum period ends with the date of the poll itself. The amendments tabled by noble Lords did not make that clear.
Perhaps it is not right for me to rehearse the background to my noble friend Lord Hamilton’s amendment. He has been commendably brief, so perhaps I will follow his example in that regard. He has already made it clear that he accepts that Amendment 1 is unnecessary if the House were to accept the government amendment, which puts a minimum of a 10-week referendum period on the face of the Bill. My noble friend also said that he is content not to press ahead with the second part of his amendment, which would require regulations setting the date to be laid at least 16 weeks before the referendum can be held. Noble Lords will be aware that we have an established procedure for laying and making affirmative secondary legislation, and that will be followed in this regard. That takes some time in itself.
I very much thank my noble friend Lord Hamilton and others for their constructive engagement on these issues, and I hope that noble Lords will support government Amendment 9 and not press the other amendments related to these matters.
Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, relates to the time when the process of designating lead campaigners should begin. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides the framework for national and regional referendums, the start date of the designation process is the first day of the referendum period. At the alternative vote referendum, where there was an 11-week referendum period, this caused some concern because it meant that lead campaigners were not designated until about five weeks before the referendum took place. Legislation for the Scottish independence referendum provided for a different approach whereby the lead campaigners were designated shortly before the referendum period.
While this does have the advantage of ensuring that the lead campaigners have sufficient time to use their benefits for any given date, it could restrict the time available for the referendum period, which is when the full controls on campaigning apply, or indeed could limit the choice of referendum dates. I know that that was not the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment—he is not seeking that technical route.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend for the way in which she listened to the arguments put in Committee. I hate to rain on this parade at this stage but after reflecting on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I have one or two worries which I hope that my noble friend will consider before she brings forward an amendment at a later stage in the Bill. As I understand it, this amendment would mean that if there was only one designated campaign, it would still get access to broadcasting time and taxpayers’ money to carry out the campaign in circumstances where the Electoral Commission had designated only one campaign. I entirely understand the concern the noble Lord had, which was reflected in the legislation for the Scottish referendum. Suppose two competing organisations wished to be the lead campaign, and there was disillusion with the decision that had been taken by the Electoral Commission and that was subject to judicial review, and that we got into a position where there was no clarity about the position of an opposition and therefore no alternative campaign. It would then clearly be absurd to put a quango—an unelected, unaccountable body such as the Electoral Commission—in a position where it could effectively ensure that only one side was supported with taxpayers’ resources and the ability to go to the broadcasters. It is highly unlikely that this situation would arise but, as the noble Lord has pointed out, his own worries, which the amendment is designed to deal with, are also highly unlikely. Has my noble friend thought about that, and what is the answer to my concern?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I will refer first to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. He asked for further confirmation, just to be absolutely sure about the fact that the referendum period will be a minimum of 10 weeks and in advance of that is the designation period. The two cannot be conflated. I think that gives him the satisfaction he sought that there is no way of concertinaing it, if I can put it that way.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his comments, but I recognise what he said about the importance of looking not just at gaming, although that will be at the basis of this. This leads neatly to the concerns rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. As soon as one enables single-sided designation, one has to consider very carefully the inequity that may follow. That is why I was not able to put my name to the text of the amendment, even if it had been in the right place in the Bill. That is what I commit to look at between now and Third Reading.
My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that only the designated lead campaigners are entitled to a referendum broadcast. Where there is only one designated campaigner, it would indeed raise questions of partiality rather than impartiality if only one person had access to that. These are matters on which the Government have already been reflecting since Committee, and need to reflect on further. Designated lead campaigners are entitled to an equal grant of up to £600,000. It is not immediately clear how that would operate with just one lead campaigner. The Government have been reflecting and will reflect further and consider the views of noble Lords, but we need to consider how to incorporate or otherwise these benefits into a system where it will end up being possible for only one lead campaigner to be designated.
My noble friend has raised an important matter. In the light of my response to that and my commitment to work further with noble Lords before Third Reading, I hope that when the government amendments are called the House will feel able to support them, and that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I think I have made it quite clear already that I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith on raising his excellent report. It will help us in future debates because not only did he touch on this subject, but he went through all the definitions of citizenship. The issue has arisen over a number of years because there was a separation between being a British passport holder and having the right to reside in Britain. That complication grew historically from our imperial past. The issue here is that we have a report that recommends something in principle that most of us would agree with but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, that is not what this amendment is attempting to do. In his report, my noble and learned friend made it clear that there should be transitional arrangements. Simply put, people residing here should not have the vote taken away. This amendment will, in effect, say to people who reside here and have the right to vote here that they will no longer have the right to vote in a referendum because of the date of the referendum. We cannot accept this amendment, even though there may be principles in it that are worth consideration, because it would be wrong. Someone mentioned extending the franchise. This is about not extending the franchise but taking it away from people who already have it. That is why we cannot possibly support it.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate. This is the first of a number of amendments concerned with the franchise, the majority of which are concerned with extending it. This amendment is concerned with restricting the franchise. It was considered in a different form, but it is in principle the same and is about whether Commonwealth citizens should be excluded from the franchise. I take the qualification of the noble Lord, Lord Green, that it would be if those Commonwealth citizens are not British citizens. In this amendment he has specified that should the referendum be held on or after 1 January 2017, Commonwealth citizens who are resident should not be eligible to vote, so if the referendum takes place before then, the existing Westminster franchise should pertain. The amendment would have the same effect for Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar.
Noble Lords will be aware that the franchise for this referendum is based on that used for parliamentary elections, but I reiterate that it includes Commonwealth citizens who are citizens of a country mentioned in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981—there is quite a number of countries—so long as they are resident in the United Kingdom. It is worth emphasising those words. As I have emphasised in previous debates, the Government think this is fair and consistent with the precedents taken from previous referendums. This franchise was used in the alternative vote referendum in 2011, and it is the franchise that was set out in the European Union Act of that year. Noble Lords will remember that a referendum would have been triggered in the event of the transfer of powers or competence to the European Union.
As I have said to the House before, “Commonwealth citizen” is a broad term. It is set out in Section 37 of the British Nationality Act. It includes British citizens as well as those who hold other types of British nationality, including British overseas territories citizens, British subjects and citizens of those countries listed in Schedule 3 to the Act. In order to be entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors, Commonwealth citizens must have leave to enter the UK or to remain under the Immigration Act 1971 or must not require such leave. While in many democratic countries eligibility to vote is based on citizenship, I set out in Committee that it is our historical ties with Commonwealth countries that justify this approach.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, addressed your Lordships’ House with reference to his report, which was indeed cited in Committee. He assisted the House by explaining that he was asked to review the difficult question of British citizenship, and that the quotation perfectly reasonably relied upon by the noble Lord, Lord Green, had to be seen in the context of a general review of what it meant to be a citizen and what, if anything, we should do to clarify the nature of citizenship or to record it. It is correct, as was elucidated during his remarks to the House, that he suggested that if the franchise were to be restricted to British citizens then those with an existing right to vote should have that phased out. I respectfully adopt the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that what is contained in the amendment is really not a phasing out; it is effectively a guillotine, albeit a somewhat delayed one—a sword of Damocles, as it were.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the Minister intend to do anything about the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, or is it just going to gather dust?
Lord Faulks
I would like to be able to assist my noble friend and say that there are specific plans—I am sure that at this time the question of citizenship above all else will be a matter well in the mind of the Government—but I cannot pretend that there are any immediate plans that I am aware of to implement the suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord.
I should add that on occasions when Parliament has considered the issue of Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights, it has taken the view that the situation should remain as it is at present. We consider that this referendum is not the place to address the franchise issue again. While the amendment rightly acknowledges that it would take time to implement a change to the franchise by stating that this would apply only if the referendum were to be held on or after 1 January 2017, I am sure noble Lords will agree that Commonwealth voting rights ought to be considered as a matter of principle, not merely as a happenstance of date, to answer the point made by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the point about the happenstance of date, does the Minister think it reasonable that someone could just have arrived in this country and after as long as it took them to get on the register, which would be a matter of days, they would then be entitled to vote in a referendum that is of such crucial importance to our country?
Lord Faulks
If they are resident in this country then they are entitled to vote. Of course in an extreme example, which I think is probably unlikely to happen, someone could arrive and then immediately attempt to register, however long that might take. However, I respectfully suggest that we cannot require those who are entitled to vote to remain in this country for a specific time before they become entitled to vote in the way that Parliament has hitherto always decided that they should be allowed to. I respectfully suggest that this is not the moment to change that franchise. Whatever may or may not be considered appropriate to do by changing the nature of citizenship or endorsing the importance of it, this amendment is not an appropriate vehicle to bring that about, nor to change the franchise. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, this matter has now had an airing and a response. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to that, especially to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The only point that I would challenge in what has been said is the question of the guillotine, or of taking away something that people have. That would be the eventual effect but let us be clear that they would have a year in which to become British citizens, so it would be their decision not to become British citizens that would mean they could not vote. However, I think we have had the debate. It is now clear that all three parties are opposed to these amendments, and there are other matters to be pursued. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, would extend the referendum franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds in the United Kingdom. As I think a number of noble Lords will appreciate, the amendment is incomplete, because it would not enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds in Gibraltar and does not make provision for the technical legislation and time-consuming operational work that would be required to register these young electors. The question of principle, however, has been roundly debated in Committee and here today. There has not been a great deal of agreement, but I hope that there may be some agreement about the House that it is essential that this referendum should be seen to be fair—and that it should be fair. We should avoid any action that could be seen as some attempt to push towards a particular outcome. That is a significant reason why, with the small changes to enfranchise Gibraltar electors and Peers, both of whom are already entitled to vote in certain elections, the Bill adopts the parliamentary franchise. We want to avoid any allegations of interference and we fear that changing the franchise, including this particular change, could be seen as doing exactly that and could seriously undermine the legitimacy of the referendum.
Much mention has been made of the Scottish independence referendum: how that came about, whether it was opportunism by the SNP, or whether the Conservative Government were somewhat asleep on the job. It took place, and noble Lords have pointed to it and suggested that we should learn a great deal from it. However, just as the franchise used in Scotland was a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine, I suggest that the franchise for elections and referendums that affect the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a matter for this Parliament to decide. As I am sure noble Lords would accept, a decision of the Scottish Parliament does not and should not prevent this Parliament taking a different approach; the example of Scottish guardians is a particularly vivid illustration.
During the course of this debate there was an interesting use of the concept of a precedent. It is said that this referendum is exceptional, and in one sense it is. However, at the same time the argument seems to be that the decisions of the Scottish Parliament after a referendum involving 16 and 17 year-olds provide a clear precedent and indicate that the franchise should be lowered for this referendum. Yet apparently, as I understand it, the Labour Party will not argue that this will therefore lead to any proposed change in the franchise for a general election. This sits rather uneasily with the argument in Committee, which was, essentially, that the genie was out of the bottle and that once you had allowed 16 year-olds to vote in the Scottish Parliament, the argument was all over. I suggest that we need to look at the argument carefully to consider whether it is right for this country.
Noble Lords have pointed to the difference, but surely, devolution by its very nature gives rise to the possibility of difference. It does not mean that we should necessarily harmonise. The fact that people may do certain things in Scotland aged 16—get married without parental consent, formally change their name, access their birth records if adopted—does not mean that the same rules must or should apply across the United Kingdom.
It is said, correctly, that the poll is exceptional and will affect 16 and 17 year-olds for longer. Noble Lords have suggested that, because the vote will—or should, in view of what the Prime Minister has said—affect everybody in this country for the rest of their lives, that means that 16 and 17 year-olds ought to have a say. But of course, without being frivolous in any way, it follows that 14 and 15 year-olds will have to live with the outcome for longer, and no one is seriously suggesting, except in order to illustrate the argument, that they should be allowed to vote.
We heard about the response of most democracies to the voting age. It is 18 in all the countries in the European Union except Austria. I leave aside Cuba and other interesting examples of democracies. It is also the voting age that has been applied in other exceptional circumstances. In 2011, when the public voted in a referendum with similarly lasting constitutional significance—namely, the voting system used to elect Members of the other place—where was the cry for 16 year-olds then?
Does the decision that we will make with this referendum outweigh in importance all other decisions that Parliament comes to? I suggest that the answer is: not necessarily. For example, there is the decision that in England all those under 18 must be in education or training, yet we do not allow individuals under 18 years of age to participate in parliamentary elections. We have to draw a line somewhere where the voting age is concerned, and I accept that there is always an element of arbitrariness about it. However, arbitrary though it is, it is one that hitherto has generally received approval.
It is said that young people have shown signs of engagement and political activity—for example, in the Scottish referendum—and that this indicates their readiness to vote. However, recent YouGov polling suggested that only 56% of 16 year-olds said that they would like to be able to vote, and that figure decreased to 42% of 17 year-olds and 36% of 18 year-olds. Using democratic engagement and the burst of enthusiasm that there seems to have been, or the lack of it, as the basis for giving or denying the vote would set a very odd precedent. There are of course many 50 year-olds who are not politically engaged, but that does not mean that we are going to disfranchise them. Simply lowering the voting age will not necessarily increase levels of democratic engagement among all young people.
I turn now to the complexity associated with the age of majority and the need to draw a line. Scientific study of the adolescent brain has yet to identify an obvious point at which we can distinguish between adolescents and adults. There is a considerably held view that it is not until the age of 25 that the adult brain reaches its ultimate state of maturity, so we look at the broader framework. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Blencathra, did not think that at 16 young people were ready to vote. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel—few have more concern about and knowledge of 16 and 17 year-olds—also took that view.
We should not underestimate the gravity of voting. One can say that it is all great fun, we can join in and it is good to enthuse, but it is a huge responsibility. It is a momentous occasion for every individual, and of course a 16 year-old, given the chance to vote, will and should take it very seriously. However, we have to ask ourselves whether, in our desire to enthuse 16 and 17 year-olds, we may be in danger of placing too great a responsibility on them.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, is it not extraordinarily patronising to young people to suggest that they will somehow regard voting as being like a university rag and not a serious intellectual and civil responsibility?
Lord Faulks
That is precisely the point that I am not making. The point I am making is that they will not, and should not, regard it trivially. The question is whether it is appropriate for us to burden them with a responsibility which they will no doubt take seriously. It is not a question of simply saying, “This is a good thing for them to do. Therefore, we should grant them that right”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
A person’s mental ability has never been taken into account when considering their right to vote, so is the noble Lord getting on to dangerous ground here? People who lack mental ability still have the right to vote. Surely he is not saying that they should not have the right to vote because they may not have that maturity.
Lord Faulks
The noble Baroness is right in the sense that we do not assess mental capacity before deciding whether somebody might vote. That is correct. However, when we take the difficult decision on where to draw the line—on whether the voting age should be 18, 16 or 21—we are entitled to inform ourselves generally about individuals’ state of development to see generally what a typical adolescent might be like.
Lord Tyler
Will the noble Lord tell us whether he has seen the film “Suffragette”? The argument that he has just been advancing was the argument for not giving women the vote until after the First World War and then for not extending it to those under the age of 28. Those arguments were deployed by his contemporaries, as it were, of that period.
Lord Faulks
I am afraid that I have not had enough time to see the film, but any argument about where you draw a line could be simply dismissed as one that has been used hitherto in different circumstances. I am concerned about whether giving these particular young people the vote is appropriate.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
I am sure that the noble Lord does not wish to be offensive but the last time I heard arguments about brains and capacity was in Jackson, Mississippi, with the Ku Klux Klan showing me charts of the average Negro brain compared with a white brain. Does he not realise that arguments of that kind are deeply offensive?
Lord Faulks
I resent the noble Lord’s suggestion. We are engaging in an argument about whether to lower the voting age. Seeking comparisons with the Ku Klux Klan is entirely inappropriate and I reject it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the point about suffragettes, would it be worth reminding the Benches opposite that it was Asquith and Lloyd George who consistently denied women the vote, the reason being that they thought it would upset the men and lose votes. That was exactly the kind of opportunism that we are seeing here today from the Liberal Benches.
Lord Faulks
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not think it was appropriate to try to guess how 16 and 17 year-olds would vote. In fact, it would probably be a mistake even to begin to speculate—we would probably be wrong about it. Although I am grateful for the interruption, that is not the issue that I am trying to engage upon.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept as fact that this cohort of 16 and 17 year-olds is extremely mature and culturally aware? More than 45% of young people in this cohort will go to university or on to further education, whereas 60 years ago 5% of them did so. We have an extremely developed and mature 16 and 17 year-old cohort.
Lord Faulks
I am afraid that I cannot accept facts baldly stated—engagingly stated though they are. The answer is that many more people than before are being educated, and it is a different debate as to whether this is appropriate—
Baroness Crawley
Would the noble Lord accept the facts from the House of Commons Library?
Lord Faulks
I am not sure that it is going to enlighten the House very much if we try to decide how well educated or not well educated these young people are. One of the arguments was that young people spend a great deal of time on the internet or go travelling. The answer is that some 16 and 17 year-olds are extremely intelligent and well informed; others are not. The bigger point is whether, looking at them as a cohort, they have changed radically since, for example, Parliament considered this matter in the round in debating the Representation of the People Bill.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
This is my first ever intervention and I ought to explain to the House that I am a convert to the idea of 16 and 17 year-olds being able to vote. The great benefit regarding this particular cohort is that at least many of them, although not as many as I would wish, will have benefited from citizenship education in school, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of the population.
Lord Faulks
I am honoured to have been intervened on by the noble Lord, and I hear what he says.
I was endeavouring to address the House on the Representation of the People Act 1969, which was brought in by the party opposite when it was in power. At that stage, the question was whether to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The debates in this House ranged over the issues that one would expect. Often, amendments were put forward suggesting that it be lowered only to the age of 20. There was no suggestion that it should be lowered to the age of 16. What has changed so fundamentally about adolescence between then and now?
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I can tell the Minister what the difference is between then and now. The difference is that, now, we have a well-fed, well-educated set of 16 and 17 year-olds who are vastly more mature than I was at that age, and that was 40 years ago. Let us get on with the present.
Lord Faulks
Let me turn to something that may excite the party opposite slightly less, which is the question of what may happen in practical terms if there is a change of franchise. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that with a fair wind these matters could easily be accommodated—I hope that she will forgive me if I summarise what she said. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was, I think, suggesting that I had in some way misquoted the Electoral Commission, but I do not think that that is a fair accusation. Let me make entirely clear what the Electoral Commission said in its publication yesterday. The commission states that it is not the case that there must be a 12-month period between a change to the franchise and the referendum, or indeed any fixed period. Reports in the media that refer to the 12-month period are incorrect.
I ask the House’s indulgence while I quote accurately one paragraph from that publication:
“It is important that Parliament is aware that if the annual canvass does not fall before the electoral event that a franchise change applies to, a key opportunity is missed to get the new group of voters registered. This does not mean, however, that other options are not available to help get as many voters as possible on the register in the available timeframe. Although the scale of the challenge presented by some of these options should not be underestimated—and it must be borne in mind that every voter is now required to register themselves individually—this does not mean that steps cannot be taken to reduce the risks presented by them with proper planning and funding”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I just want to ask a factual question. Can the noble Lord say whether or not the annual canvass could be brought forward? I have no idea.
Lord Faulks
I have no idea of the answer to that question. The Electoral Commission will no doubt do its best, as I said in Committee, to follow what Parliament decides should be the franchise. It is also the case that, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, there are things that can be done, notwithstanding that there are various steps necessary to implement the legislation; for example, setting the referendum date and the start date. It is a very considerable undertaking involving a great many people.
I echo the point made my noble friend Lord Forsyth that being left off the register is considered a matter of considerable importance. Although there can be a campaign to increase awareness, there is a real risk that this matter would not be achieved in a satisfactory way, notwithstanding the willingness of the Electoral Commission to assist.
Legislation as momentous as this must command consensus in both Houses and the country as a whole. Reference was made to a recent amendment voted on in this House to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill to allow 16 year-olds to vote: that was reversed by the House of Commons yesterday by a substantial majority.
A change of this sort needs substantial legislation; it is a very important change. We have decided that the appropriate franchise is the one that has pertained satisfactorily in previous referenda and general elections, one that pertains in every country in the EU except Austria. There may come a time for change, when we lower the age to 16. There may be a debate to be had. This is not the moment for that debate.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
I thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the Minister and by others.
The one thing that we can all agree on is the need for us, at some point, to generally tidy up the inconsistencies around when young people are considered legally responsible for various aspects of their lives. But that is not the point of this amendment. Young people are the future of this nation. This is their one chance to have a say in this country’s relationship with the European Union. It is an exceptional case. They will have to live with the consequences of the result for longer than anyone. Let us show them that we have confidence in them, and that we respect them and their opinions. Let us give them a vote in the EU referendum.
I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.