Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Falkner of Margravine and Baroness Chakrabarti

Friday 28th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Adonis on bringing forward this Bill. I thank him for giving me a timely reminder that legislation can sometimes be empowering rather than oppressive.

I have long been an enthusiast for the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, since long before I joined a political party, and have found the arguments against it reminiscent of those once marshalled against votes for working people and for women. That the Government opposed this measure in their 2019 manifesto means little given that, by definition, the disenfranchised category could not endorse that; I suspect that it was not determinative in that election but I could be wrong about that.

Given the shenanigans contained in the pending Elections Bill, I have no doubt that some would ideally like to raise the voting age, perhaps to 39, or indeed reintroduce the property qualification, but I am not among their number. Of course, I accept that maturity is a gradual and organic process—and, judging by some of the behaviour that I have witnessed even in the Palace of Westminster over the years, it may not be complete at any particular age.

Still, the law requires some fixed, if necessary, arbitrary ages for the allocation of rights and obligations in a society. As voting is such a fundamental democratic right, it seems better to err on the side of enfranchisement rather than deprivation, particularly when general elections may come four or so years apart. To be just under 18 when a general election is held may leave a young citizen without an effective say until they are nearly 22. That is a long time, not just in politics but especially in a young life that we wish to include in and inspire with our democratic rituals.

I wish to make six arguments in favour of the age of 16. The first is probably older than the Boston Tea Party: no taxation without representation. Many young people work for low or no pay and, frankly, it is outrageous and an unjustified discrimination that they have a lower minimum wage of under £5 an hour when under 18. Those who perform vital and totally unpaid caring work in their homes for younger siblings, parents or grandparents are effectively subsidising the state with their unpaid labour, often at significant cost to their own health, education and life chances.

That leads me to my second argument—namely, that the electorate and successive Governments neglect the interests of the disenfranchised in public spending and prioritisation decisions over, for example, children and young people’s health, especially mental health, and other services. This warping of priorities becomes especially dangerous in the context of climate catastrophe, for example, which is perhaps more readily ignored, sometimes to the point of delusion, by those less likely to live to see its more dramatic consequences.

Thirdly, I must point to other things we believe it is appropriate for a 16 year-old to do, including consenting to sex; marrying or joining the military with parental consent; otherwise leaving home; driving a moped or, I believe, a small tractor, not that I have had experience of that; flying a glider; drinking a beer, cider or glass of wine with a meal in a restaurant; investing in a cash ISA, apparently—I guess for some but not for others; consenting to medical treatment; and changing their name by deed poll. I say to the two noble Lords opposite who just spoke that Botox is harmful, as is putting yourself in the field of battle, but voting is not.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness who is chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in 30 years as a human rights lawyer, I have never heard an interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that says it prohibits voting under the age of 18.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

The noble Baroness referred to my role as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I want to make it clear that in this debate I am speaking in a personal capacity, not representing the EHRC. I was in this House prior to becoming chair so have spoken on these matters in the past.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Indeed, but I was referring to the noble Baroness’s expertise rather than suggesting that she was speaking on its behalf. I am grateful for her clarification.

Fourthly and crucially, we think it acceptable for children to bear criminal responsibility for their actions at just 10 years old—a frankly barbaric state of affairs that your Lordships’ House neglected to remedy at the end of last year. I remember that the Minister was in the Chamber at that time, as was I. There is a whole eight-year gap between facing potential criminal sanction under the laws of the land and being able to elect those who shape them.

My next argument is that to extend the franchise in the manner proposed by my noble friend Lord Adonis could serve to enliven a crucial stage in the educational journey, making the learning of citizenship, humanities and applied science a vital practical exercise, not just an academic one, with, as my noble friend said, electoral candidates spending more time in schools and young people’s spaces, to the benefit of their own understanding of their constituents’ challenges. Like many noble Lords, I have had the enormous privilege of speaking in literally hundreds of schools and colleges over the years. My predominant experience is of secondary school-aged children increasingly concerned and curious about the state of the world, though not always encouraged and empowered to believe that they might affect it for the better. However, they might.

That brings me to my sixth and final argument, which concerns not what the vote could do for these young people but what they could do for the vote. That is not in a partisan sense, because I do not believe the noble Lords opposite need to be so pessimistic as to assume that any group is lost to one side of the argument or another in politics. How many in your Lordships’ House rely on children—or even, dare I say it, grandchildren—for advice or practical help, with matters relating to technology in particular? Who better to help to shape debates about online harms or the increasing algorithmic determinism that is in danger of hardwiring inequality and injustice into the human experience? In reciprocity, who better to lead the charge towards enfranchising our younger people than the mostly older heads of a wise and kindly, if unelected, Chamber demonstrating its imagination and independence?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Falkner of Margravine and Baroness Chakrabarti

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful for that. Forgive me, again, if I have called anybody names. That has not been my intention. This is difficult terrain. The path of human rights does not run smooth and there are all sorts of difficult issues to be dealt with. There are some people beyond this Committee and your Lordships’ House who seek to set people against each other. The focus of this legislation, and your Lordships’ focus in this Committee, should be to ensure the safety of vulnerable people in prison, whatever sex they were born and whatever sex they now identify as. I was trying to suggest that that is not just about biology. It is also to do with criminality, profile, attitude and so on. I believe we have too many people in prison and that we therefore have too many women in prison.

I would defend academic freedom and debate, by the way. Forgive me if I have not been seen to do so. I believe that my record on free speech matters is decent enough. I urge noble Lords to send a signal to the wider world that, in this place at least, we can disagree well and focus on protecting all vulnerable people in prison.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As most noble Lords will know, we are the body charged with protecting the protected characteristic of sex as well as that of gender reassignment and the fundamentally important human right of freedom of expression. All those things have been discussed today relatively calmly, on the whole. On debating well, I start from first principles and say that we should never try to close down debate—and yes, we should debate well.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Morrow and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for proposing this amendment, which basically seeks to ensure that female prisoners are protected from harm. This is a complex area, where the rights of trans women prisoners to have their legal sex recognised has to be balanced with those of female prisoners, who may be fearful of attack, if they know that a dangerous sex offender with male anatomy is housed with them, for example. The important point is that, when you are incarcerated and do not have the liberty to leave a place of danger, the state’s duty to look after you is profound. You do not have the choices that other people have.

The noble Lords and noble Baroness have proposed that prisoners with a gender recognition certificate who are suspected or convicted of a “violent or sexual offence” are treated

“by reference to the sex registered at their birth.”

I understand the intent behind this amendment, which is essentially to secure the safety of natal women. However, it raises some issues that require further thought—for example, the risk of violence towards trans women prisoners housed in a male prison as well as to trans men in a female prison. I urge noble Lords not to frame this serious and complex issue either in a numbers game—are there very few or not so few?—or in what may or may not be our personal outlook, if we find ourselves in that position. The law is frequently a straitjacket, and it is not sufficiently malleable to accommodate the complexity of identities around us.

At the heart of this issue is the need to protect female prisoners and ensure that they have access to single-sex spaces, including bathrooms, sleeping accommodation and other areas that they need. Violent and sexual offenders are a threat to their fellow inmates, regardless of their sex or gender identity. Cases of assault sadly already happen in single-sex prisons. However, in the case of trans prisoners who may be violent or who may have committed crimes involving sexual assault, it is right that we now need to give additional thought to how they are housed. As it stands, the law stands calls for these decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. While this will be right in many situations, it may also raise the question of how female prisoners can have confidence in their ability to safely access spaces such as toilets within the prison, precisely because they cannot know the outcome of a case-by-case assessment, as opposed to the generality of a law that exists for them. Further thought needs to be given to the facilities provided to trans people and whether provision can be expanded for trans people that ensures that all sides of that debate can be safe and secure within the prison estate.

A further problem with the amendment is that, oddly, it is too narrow and does not capture the issue of trans men or trans women who do not have a gender recognition certificate but, nevertheless, self-identify in the gender and can therefore apply and be granted a place in the relevant prison estate. I do not think the noble Lords who put down the amendment intended for it to be quite so narrow—certainly their speeches do not reflect the narrowness of the written words. These are not straightforward issues, and it is right that we properly consider the balance of rights of different prisoners. I do not believe that the amendment gets that balance right, but it does ask serious and important questions that need to be addressed in law.

If the Minister is minded to pursue these arguments through Report, I ask that he give extremely serious consideration to the importance of getting the balance of rights correct and ensuring that all prisoners have the duty of the state to safeguard them upheld as we go forward.