Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

Again, my noble friend makes an extremely relevant point. The relationship between voting age and the age of majority has not been adequately considered, either. I hope that this will emerge in the course of the debate. I do not wish to take up too much of the House’s time, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I am sure that other noble Lords will wish to explore further the pros and cons of that change. The burden of my message to your Lordships today is simply to state that the appropriate parliamentary processes for a constitutional change of this kind have not been properly observed—and that is something that should not pass without comment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is a short measure, but one that I believe will have a very positive impact on our democracy—across the United Kingdom as a whole, but most particularly in the relationship between the Members of the Scottish Parliament and local authorities in Scotland and the people who elect them, and on how politicians respond to the desires of voters when they are elected.

On the assumption that the Scottish Parliament will vote to use the power once it has been transferred, for the first time in these islands parliamentarians will be elected by people aged 16 and over. That will mean that in elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities, not only will 16 and 17 year-olds be taught about citizenship and informed in schools and colleges about the processes of democracy, but they will be active citizens themselves. They will be enfranchised, and they will be participants. That is right and proper, and a considerable and positive step.

MSPs will no longer see 16 and 17 year-olds simply as people for whom services are provided in schools or colleges, or by councils and elsewhere; they will have to consider them as voters—not only as the receivers of services but as people who will have a direct say in how those services are shaped and delivered. They will become part of the democratic relationship between those who are elected and those to whom they are accountable. That is important and this proposal is a first step towards that.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Would my noble friend like to comment on a point that has already been made: namely, that if 16 year-olds have the right to vote, should they not also have the right to stand as candidates? Will he give his views on that?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

There are two aspects to that. The first is the desire of young people themselves. For many years a consistent theme in campaigns to give people the vote at 16 is that participating in the democratic process does not automatically assume that exactly the same process should apply to those who are elected to Parliament to make these decisions. That comes from young people themselves. Secondly, the age of majority is not necessarily applied consistently as regards young people’s rights and responsibilities. For example, different approaches are taken as regards the minimum age at which one can drink alcohol, drive, join the military or buy knives. Today, we are discussing the specific issue of the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year-olds. The age of majority and whether young people of 15, 16 and upwards should be granted other rights and responsibilities is quite rightly an area which we continue to debate—and which young people themselves continue to debate. I see that my noble friend is itching to intervene and I am delighted to give way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend, but is he really arguing that 16 year-olds in Scotland should not be trusted to buy a packet of cigarettes but should be trusted to decide the future Government of the country?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am saying that there are differences in the rights and responsibilities of young people, and for those aged under 21, in these islands. In many instances the decisions made on why those rights and responsibilities differ for different ages are taken on their own merits. For example, decisions on the age at which one has the legal right to drive, join the Armed Forces or, indeed, buy articles that could potentially be used as weapons are taken on their own merits. Likewise, the proposal that 16 and 17 year-olds should also have the vote should be taken on its own merits.

I agree that there has not always been consensus on this issue among the political parties. When I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Democrats worked hard with our Labour coalition partners to persuade them of the merits of this proposal, and we have done the same with our partners in this coalition. However, as my noble and learned friend indicated, there is now a settled consensus among the parties in the Scottish Parliament representing the whole spectrum of political view that this is the way forward.

I need not rehearse the arguments further about the merits of 16 and 17 year-olds voting, because to some extent the best evidence that I can provide was presented by the young people themselves in the referendum in Scotland. Those of us who took part in debates on the referendum will know that some of the best and most profound points in terms of perspective, responsibility and maturity were made by 16 and 17 year-olds who participated in them. Of course, that was a binary decision about the future of the country but there is no doubt in my mind that it demonstrated absolutely that not only can 16 and 17 year-olds be trusted to decide how they elect their representatives but it is important that we should now enshrine that in law.

My noble friend Lord Lang referred to turnout. He is quite right: the Electoral Commission’s assessment of the referendum in Scotland showed that the turnout of 16 and 17 year-olds was 75%. The rate dropped for those aged between 18 and 24 before it started to pick up for those aged 25 to 34 and those above 35. If I follow his rationale that democratic participation should start early and then develop, the best way of enhancing 18 to 24 year-olds’ participation in democratic elections is to enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds, as the evidence on turnout suggests that that will indeed be the case. Therefore, this delivers an agreement. The agreement is unanimous and I am delighted to support it.

My noble friend raised two final points on the committee report in which I was quite interested. First, I do not accept that a possible concern that other parts of the UK may have a desire to follow Scotland should be used as a negative to delay this. That other parts of the UK will learn from Scotland’s experiences should be seen as positive. I have no doubt that the Welsh experience that he cited was a result of people seeing the way in which 16 and 17 year-olds participated within Scotland in the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is only an apparent change. The noble Lord considers it one, but in fact there is no change. The Smith commission and indeed the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, are perfectly clear on the powers to be extended to the Scottish Parliament over the franchise, as part of other aspects. The draft clauses accurately reflect the ongoing view in paragraph 27 rather than paragraph 25 of the continuation of the supermajority. In the measure that we have in front of us today—this instrument—and in the draft clauses that Parliament will be debating after the general election, there is no change, as far as I see, in the Government’s position. The noble Lord may not agree with that, but that is my view.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

It is not about whether I agree with the merits of it; it is about the objective, factual position. I was not referring to the Smith commission. I was referring to the Government’s publication in response to the Smith commission. The noble Lord may say that it is apparently at odds with the legislation; I think that it is. I am not questioning the merits of the case that he is putting; I am just trying to get an explanation on why there has been an apparent change three times in three months.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I was referring, in my answer to the noble Lord’s previous intervention, to the heads of agreement of the Smith commission, in paragraphs 25 and 27, and, in annexe A, to draft Clause 4 on page 93, which brings into effect the recommendations of the Smith commission. This clause also brings into effect a recommendation of the Smith commission, which is to move, on the basis of unanimity in the Smith commission, to the delivery of this power for 16 and 17-year olds, so that the Parliament will have that authority in advance of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. There is no difference in that position on the Government’s part, apparent or otherwise, as far as I see it.

Finally, I joined my party at the age of 16. One of my reasons for doing so was because of the position that my party had to empower 16 year-olds to take part in parliamentary elections. I am delighted that this Government have acted on the unanimity of political views in the Scottish Parliament to deliver this, and that is why I will be delighted if this goes through Parliament today.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is that he must have been quite an extraordinary 16-year old if at that age he was thinking of joining the Liberal Democrats because it was going to reduce the franchise age to 16. I have to say that when I was 16, I thought that I was a socialist, but I grew out of that after a while.

I am participating in this debate not to argue the merits or otherwise of whether people should have the vote at 16, but because I think that the process by which this is being achieved is absolutely lamentable. We began our proceedings this morning by discussing whether former Members and MEPs should have access to the facilities—the restaurants and bars—of this place. I sat here thinking that this place is presenting itself to the outside world as if it was some kind of club, rather than a House of Parliament. This debate, and the way that the Government have dealt with the matter, shows that we are being treated as a kind of club and not as a second House of Parliament with particular responsibilities for constitutional matters.

We have here an excellent report from the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Lang has explained the reservations which have been drawn to the attention of the House by the committee, but the Government propose to charge on regardless. I have the highest regard for my noble and learned friend the Minister, but even he was struggling to make bricks out of this particular straw. He suggested that there was not really a commitment that contradicted the terms. Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement was published in January 2015 as Command Paper 8990. It has a foreword signed by the right honourable Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the right honourable David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which states that it is their response to the Smith commission proposals. On page 17, it states:

“To provide an adequate check on Scottish Parliament legislation changing the franchise”,

which is what we are discussing,

“the electoral system or the number of constituency and regional members for the Scottish Parliament, UK legislation will require such legislation to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament”.

Is this not UK legislation? Are we not discussing the franchise? What do those words mean if they do not mean what I say they mean? My noble and learned friend is being Humpty Dumpty. Words, it appears, for this Government mean whatever they believe them to mean and not what they say. This was a document presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister only a few weeks ago. We are entitled to ask why this change has been made.

As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out, my noble and learned friend made a contradictory statement. He said that we are not having a supermajority because there is consensus that it should happen. As the noble Lord pointed out, if there is consensus, what is the problem with having a supermajority? My noble and learned friend did not make clear whether that supermajority is still required. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that there was consensus. Suppose that there was a majority in the Scottish Parliament that, having had a bad experience with the franchise set at 16, wanted to change it from 16 to 18. Would that require a supermajority, or has that provision simply been dropped? If the answer to my question is, yes, it would require a supermajority, is it not going to look a bit ridiculous to tell the Scottish Parliament that it can change the age to 16 but it needs a supermajority to change it back to where it was?

I am really dismayed that matters of this kind should be being dealt with by orders and regulations, which effectively prevents this House or, indeed, the other place, from making any amendments or changes and having any debate.

That brings me to my next point, which my noble and learned friend acknowledged. Included in the order is a proposal that the franchise should be extended to local government. There was nothing in Smith about that. There is nothing in this document that I can see—I stand to be corrected about that. It has come from nowhere for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the idea that we extend the franchise for local government, which may or may not be a good idea, has not been subject to proper scrutiny. No one in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom has had an opportunity to discuss the merits of it: there has been no consultation. As my noble friend Lord Lang pointed out—and has pointed out in the excellent report from the Constitution Committee of this House, which has had to be rushed out in order to meet this timetable, ahead of discussing the draft clauses to which this apparently relates—it is an extraordinary way of doing business.

In the early 1960s, as has already been mentioned, when we changed the franchise from 21 to 18, we did it after having two commissions. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, may take credit for it, as a Labour Government did this. The Labour Government in those days were very concerned about consultation and constitutional propriety and there were two separate commissions created to look at this before the change was made. One was on the age of majority, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was struggling with. How can it be right to have an age of majority that is different to the age of the franchise? We end up with the absurd position that 16 year-olds are not allowed to go and buy a pint of beer, to buy a packet of cigarettes, or to drive a car; but they are allowed to decide the future Government of their country. They are almost certainly not paying income tax or other taxes apart from indirect taxes; they will not even have a national insurance number when they are required to go on the register, because they will be 15. The national insurance number system, as the Constitution Committee report points out, is the means by which we check the identity of voters for the voters’ roll, so how is that going to work? There is nothing that I can see in the explanatory material provided by the Minister to explain any of this or to deal with the issue of whether 16 year-olds should be able to stand as candidates.

I happen to believe that, if you have the right to vote, you should have the right to stand. It is true that there has been a difference in the past. When I was at St Andrews University with the late Robert Jones—who was in the other place as the Member for West Hertfordshire and died rather prematurely—he stood as a student in St Andrews. He promptly got himself made chairman of the planning committee and started to block the principle of the plans of St Andrews for the expansion of the university, which caused a degree of consternation. It was argued then that a student should not be able to be on the council deciding these matters, but at the time people accepted that if you had the right to vote and participate in the election you should be able to stand as a candidate. This is illustrated by this House: the reason why Members of this House do not have a vote at the forthcoming general election is that we are our own representatives in Parliament. That is the constitutional theory. Therefore, if you are able to vote in the election, it seems to me that you should be able to stand and put forward your views. This is completely muddled.

What on earth are this Government doing? They seem to be making up constitutional change as they go along. They seem to be doing it under electoral pressure from the Scottish Nationalists, and—do you know what?—it does not seem to be working. Ladbrokes will give you very good odds on the SNP winning more than 39 seats in the forthcoming general election. You would not have got these odds before we made this foolish vow in the last minutes of the referendum campaign. This process of appeasement and making it up as you go along is creating instability in our country and feeding those who wish to break our United Kingdom. These are facts.

I have bored the Minister to death on this subject; I have spoken on it before and I warned him that if we introduced the opportunity for 16 year-olds to vote, then it would be argued that other parts of the United Kingdom should get the same. What do we have from this Government on the position in respect of Wales? Do we have a similar provision for the Welsh Assembly? Apparently not: we have a provision that 16 year-olds in Wales might get the vote in order to vote in a referendum on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly. Where is the logic of that? You would get to vote on tax-raising powers as a 16 year-old when you may not have to pay them but not get to vote for the Members of the Welsh Assembly. However, if you move north of the border you would get the opportunity to vote for the Scottish Parliament because there is consensus among the political parties about this. Why is there a consensus in Scotland? What about England?

What are this Government doing in bringing forward measures based on the Smith commission, which had a narrow remit? Its remit was to consider what was right for Scotland. It did not look at the rest of the United Kingdom or the implications for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In which case, why on earth are we still retaining the Barnett formula and allowing Scotland to raise its own tax, if the principle was that there was “no detriment” to the rest of the United Kingdom? There was no representation from anyone from the rest of the United Kingdom; it was the political parties in Scotland looking at the position in Scotland.

My noble and learned friend, who is a very clever lawyer, is making a quite separate point. You can look at what is in the interests of Scotland in such a way that it creates no detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is not the same thing as looking at the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and considering the knock-on implications. That is a matter for this House and, more particularly, the other place but they are being given no opportunity to debate and consider it. In the case of the changes to local government there has been no opportunity for anyone in Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament or anywhere else to consider that.

I return to my point. We had the Smith commission looking at Scotland. Then we had this ludicrous vow made in the last few days of the campaign—after I and many other people had voted, because many people voted by post. It was done without consultation with the party leaders in Scotland, hence the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland resigned and described her party as being treated like a branch office. Our leader Ruth Davidson, who did such an excellent job in the referendum campaign, was not consulted. This was three privy counsellors on the phone, cooking up a scheme. We have not had that style of government, where privy counsellors could consult each other and create legislative change of this kind, since the days of Wolf Hall. We should be very concerned indeed by the way in which this matter has been done and brought forward.

Then we had the childish timetable where the Government were required to respond from September by St Andrew’s Night, and then from St Andrew’s Night we had to have draft clauses by Burns Night. This is pantomime politics. Not only did we have these draft clauses by Burns Night but, a week later, we had the architect—the hero—of saving the union, Gordon Brown, telling us all that what he had produced and agreed by Burns Night was no longer satisfactory and that we needed to do something else. This is riding for trouble. We should consider constitutional matters carefully and they should carry consensus. We should consider the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole. It should never be driven by political expediency or short-term political consideration.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am enjoying my noble friend’s contribution but, with regard to symbolism, I wonder which has the richer symbolism in what he is referring to. Is it David Cameron not consulting Ruth Davidson in advance of making that joint statement with the other leaders of the UK parties or, in some form of symbolic suggestion, moving the Stone of Scone up to Scotland in 1996 to cross the River Tweed with great fanfare?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am very proud of having taken—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is not symbolic at all, is it?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sure the House will get cross with me if I go on much longer but, as the noble Lord has raised the Stone of Scone, the reason that I persuaded the Prime Minister, who in turn persuaded Her Majesty the Queen, that the stone should be returned to Scotland—and the reason it came up as an issue—had nothing whatever to do with any symbolism.