Electoral Administration Bill
|
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab) rose Mr. Robinson: This is a volunteer, I suppose. Chris Ruane: No, but my grandfather was. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to let 16-year-olds in Belfast and the rest of the UK have the vote, those young people would need a great deal of education and encouragement to voteespecially in the Belfast area, because it is third from bottom in the UK for registration levels, with a rate of 72.6 per cent? Twenty-eight per cent. of those eligible are not even registered. Mr. Robinson: Unquestionably, but even if the age were changed to 16 I think that there would be a very low take-up. It might not be pleasant to say so in this Committee, but voting for political parties is not one of the top two or three desires of 16 or 17-year-olds today. As the statistic cited by the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is not even one of the top desires even of those who are 18 or older. We must ask ourselves if the broad swathe of 16 to 18-year-olds are sufficiently politically mature to take the necessary decisions. I do not believe that they are. We would be making a grave error if we simply cited the trend of history and said that we were saying these things when women were disenfranchised, and those between 18 and 21. The case has not been made for the voting age to be 16. Why not 15? Why not 14? Why not dash straight from the maternity ward to the polling booth? We must have an age, and no one has told us why it must be 16 as opposed to 18. If the case is to be made, it must show that there is something magical about the age of 16that that age has a rationale behind it that forces the Committee to adopt it. The case has not been made. I remain open about any future changes, because it would be to my partys political advantage to agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but I do not believe that we have reached that stage yet. Mr. Binley: We are talking about a test for voting, and the current test is the test of age. Hon. Members might believe that the test should be the ability to handle mobile phones, in which case I would fail. I apologise, Mr. OHara, for having allowing mine to ring in the Committee earlier. Hon. Members: Again. The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already had a spot fine. Mr. Binley: I shall see you later, sir. Rumours are flying around the House that I have been appointed president of the votes for foetuses organisation, which I totally refute. This is a serious debate about why we should allow our citizens a vote at a certain age. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the case to lower the
The hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned jury service, which I particularly want to discuss. The two might not be allied. I might be totally wrong The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet Harman): You are wrong. Mr. Binley: I want to be assured that I am wrong. Forgive me, but the matter was discussed. It is a very important issue. I am less concerned if the two are not allied, but the Minister would be equally concerned if they were allied, and we might not be arguing as we are today. My concern is that the case has not been madeand even if it had been, I am not sure that such a change should be made in an amendment to this Bill. It is a bigger issue, and should have formed a basis of the debate at all stages of the Bill. I am sorry that we are introducing at this stage of the Bill a subject of such import that would have such an impact on our society. That might be a good reason to exclude it at this stage, so that we can have a proper debate on this subject, using all the processes of Parliament. Barbara Keeley (Worsley) (Lab): I understand that nationally, the UK Youth Parliament supports votes at 16. Interestingly, however, the members of the Youth Parliament and their deputies from Wigan do not believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16 now. Michaela Neild, a member of the Youth Parliament who recently spent a day at Westminster, recently sent me a note saying that
should be given to young people
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made some strong arguments, and it is good that we are having this debate. She said that citizenship was a key focus in one in five schools, but that is not enough. It shows that we have some way to go. I am working to encourage the secondary schools in my constituency to engage in Youth Parliament activities and school debates, but sometimes their agreement to that participation is a bit slow. I also want schools to meet me regularly for question and answer sessions on the role of a MP and the political issues of the day. We recently saw some innovations in local democracy week. The Wigan members of the Youth Parliament have something that they call political speed-dating, which is scary for politicians to get involved in. Interestingly, when they voted at the end on who had had the best interactions, the local politicians came out best. Column Number: 164 My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about the birthday lotterybut people can vote soon after their 18th birthday, at local elections. That is important: people can vote not only at general elections but as soon as possible after their 18th birthday, at the next local elections. Indeed, the figures that my hon. Friend cited for Germany and Austria are for municipal elections. Local authorities are responsible for a great many matters that affect young people. They are responsible for schools, youth services, and leisure and sport facilities; they are involved in key areas such as transport, which is important to people of that age. We must encourage engagement at that level; not enough is done about that. Citizenship and youth participation are important, and if we, as politicians, feel that people in their 30s are not engaged, we must look back at the era when there was not a Labour Government and ask why the Conservative party did not do more during the 18 years for which it was in power. Mrs. Laing: Sometimes it is reasonable to make a party political point, but that is not a reasonable one. The Conservative Government introduced the national curriculum in education, and before that there was no question of citizenship education. The hon. Lady was not here so she might not remember this, but it was a Conservative Government who introduced personal and social education The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady has made her point. We have, commendably and remarkably, come this far without engaging in party politics, and I hope that we can continue like that. Barbara Keeley: I think that if she checks, the hon. Lady will find that there has been much more focus on citizenship education under Labour Governments. Only one in five schools is focusing on it now, but there were nearly two decades when work could have been done. Work is being done now, but we must do more and redouble our efforts. We are taking the subject more seriously, and working to get our young people ready for political participation, but I want to make the point strongly that that should have been done sooner. I agree that the argument now is about when, not whether, we should move to voting at 16. Young people in my constituency do not necessarily say that the time is right yet, but we must redouble our efforts so that all schools have a key focus on citizenship. Mr. Heath: May I corroborate what the hon. Lady says? I have also spoken to 16-year-olds who are divided on the issue of the right to vote. Howeverthis also touches on what the hon. Lady is sayingthey are united in the feeling that local authorities, in particular, should have better mechanisms for listening to what they have to say on the provision of services. We ought to encourage that across the country. Column Number: 165 Barbara Keeley: My experience of local authorities has been that they are very good at that, but there is space to say that we must redouble our efforts. All schools must have a key focus on citizenship and political education, and some of them do not. I want to get to a point at which the members of the Youth Parliament in my constituency feel that they are ready for votes at 16, and I take my cue from that. Dr. Pugh: May I slightly gainsay the points made by the hon. Lady, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome? When suffrage was extended to women, women were not united in the belief that they should have the vote. Some very formidable women in public life, such as Margot Asquith, argued strongly that women should not have the vote, at a time when other women were arguing to the contrary. 11.15 amBarbara Keeley: That is a difficult point. Women now compriseI am not sure of the exact numbers at the time of the votes for women debatemore than 50 per cent. of the population, but it is not even worth considering whether that is a comparator. The group of young people aged 16 and 17 is much smaller. When I have consulted on the matter in my constituency, the young people who are very involvedto the extent of coming down here for the day and getting involved with the Youth Parliamentmake the point that they do not feel quite ready yet. Ms Harman: This has been an interesting and useful debate, and I warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North for introducing this subject to the Committee this morning. The points that she and other hon. Members raised touched on a number of different issues that are dealt with by the Bill as a whole. We are concerned that as many people as possible should be included in participation in our democracy; that has been a running theme throughout the Committee. In particular, we have been concerned that young people are not registered to vote and are not participating in the vote. That is why there will be new duties on electoral registration officers to ensure that they cannot just stand by and leave it to people not to register, but must tackle the problem of under-registration and lack of participation. We also talked, on Second Reading and during the earlier Committee stage on the Floor of the House, about whether our democracy is representative. How representative can a democracy be if it does not fairly represent women, or if it does not fairly represent and hear the voices of minority ethnic groups in the UK? There has been much discussion of the themes of enfranchisement, representation and inclusion. For example, we had a long discussion about whether people with disabilities were properly able to be put on the register so that they then had their right to vote, and we also discussed the armed services. Those are examples of our concern, during consideration of the Bill, to ensure that we have as much inclusion as
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked whether we had drawn the line in the right place at 18, or whether we should move to 16. That is an important point, and she made a good case. The hon. Member for Belfast, East rightly said that any age limit is not an exact science. He also raised the point about young people not having experience. It is true that young people do not have the experience of older people. They do not have the experience that I have, for example, of forgetting the names of people whom I know very well, of needing reading glasses, or of just being around for an awfully long time. However, they have different experiences, and the question is whether we want to draw more on those experiences than we currently do. Young people have experience of things that we in this House and in local councils spend a lot of time talking about; for example, bullying in schools. For most of us, if we have had personal experience of that, it is a long-distant memory. They also have experience of why young people do or do not carry knives; that is a new phenomenon, which was not around when we were younger. They have experience of street crime, which is very age-related in terms of ones likelihood of being a victim. A middle-aged woman walking down a street is not likely to be a victim of street crime, but a 15-year-old boy might be mugged not once but twice on his way to school. The question of experience therefore cuts both ways. My hon. Friend argues that it is good to catch people when they are young and have good voting habits. We are familiar with the argument that establishing good eating habits in young people means that they will eat well for the rest of their lives. If they have good exercise habits, they will probably exercise well for the rest of their lives. The idea of catching them when they are young is a good and substantive point that is worth considering. My hon. Friend also talked about the gap between the end of citizenship classes and the beginning of effective citizenship participation. That is a new point. We did not have citizenship classes before and therefore that gap was not an issue. I agree with her that it seems logical that after completing all the education and citizenship classesmy hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) rightly pointed out that these classes are not yet as pervasive across the country as we hope they will bepeople should immediately participate in democracy by being able to vote. Mrs. Laing: Is it not the case that in most parts of the country there are local elections every year? I appreciate that in some places they do not occur every year, but perhaps two out of every three years. In my part of Essex people have the chance to vote in local elections on the first Thursday of May every year. Everyone coming out of those citizenship classes will be able to vote in such elections when they are newly 18. Column Number: 167 Ms Harman: My point is that citizenship classes finish at 16. If people do not vote until they are 18, there is a gap. That is the only point I make on this. Hon. Members asked about juries. The Juries Act 1974 sets the age of qualification for jury service and therefore there is no connection there. The electoral register is used as the data for selecting people for jury service as a matter of convenience, but there is no logical connection. Mr. Robinson: I think that the Minister has missed the point about jury service, probably because I did not make it sufficiently clear. The test is whether those who argue that people are sufficiently mature to vote at the age of 16 would be prepared to submit themselves to a jury of 16-year-olds. If not, why should 16-year-olds be taking decisions in the court of public opinion? Ms Harman: In local communities where there is a particular problem with youth crime, serious consideration has to be given to how young people are involved in the deliberation of the youth justice system, such as in the community justice centre in Liverpool. There is an argument for including more young people in decision-making in the youth justice system, which affects them not just as defendants but as victims. Returning to jury service, those over 70 are excluded, but they are not excluded from the electoral register. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. We will keep this under active consideration, not because we believe that there is some absolute right figure or because we believe that it is an exact science, not even necessarily because we think that it is a question of rights, but because we are concerned about participation. If lowering the voting age can help us with participation, we must look at it. We cannot just drift into a situation where in some areas only 70 per cent. of the people are on the register, and of those, only 30 per cent. vote. In the context of our desire to increase registration and participation, we will look at this. I thank my hon. Friend for withdrawing the amendment Hon Members: Oh! The Chairman: Order. Let us see. Ms Harman: I thank her for indicating that she will seek leave to withdraw the amendment. None the less, I thank her for giving the Committee the opportunity to debate this matter. Ms Johnson: I wish to make a few brief comments. In tabling the amendment, I am not arguing for a common age of majority. One can recognise that while 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to participate in our democracy, they must have certain protections. In the wider community, we recognise the need for protection against discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, and the need for minimum wage protection. I wished to make that clear because that matter was raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Column Number: 168 I also wish to express my surprise at the comment made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the research on voting habits that has been carried out by the Social Market Foundation. As politicians, we must be concerned about whether people choose to vote. We must examine all evidence and take steps to encourage people to vote. Mrs. Laing: The hon. Lady made some interesting points about first-time voters in general elections. However, I made the point to the Minister in another context that, in most parts of the country, there are local elections every year. Are local elections not considered important? Ms Johnson: Of course they are. I want to see young people engaged in local, general, European, and London mayoral elections. However, parliamentary elections are especially important because they concern the running of the whole country. I was heartened to hear what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said about leaving the matter open for the future. He did not dismiss the idea out of hand. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) recognised that this issue will have a huge impact on society, and he is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) made some important points about the roles of local authorities and local government, and how we need to engage young people to participate. I thought that the concept of political speed dating was scary; I am not sure for whom, the politician or the young person. I was heartened to hear what my right hon. Friend said about inclusion and participation, which all hon. Members want to see improved in our electoral administration. On the basis of the debate and the comments that have been made by hon. Members from all parties, I accept that now may not be the time to act, but it very shortly will be. However, I will certainly pay close attention to what the Minister does in the next months about her undertaking to keep the matter under active review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 11.30 amMr. Binley: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in schedule 1, page 83, line 7, leave out paragraph (b). It is a particular pleasure to table an amendment during these proceedings. My amendment concerns schedule 1, paragraph 61(5)(b), which reads:
We seek to have paragraph 61(5)(b) removed because Opposition hon. Members believe that it is totally unnecessary. Indeed, it is not only unnecessary; it is not at all helpful. I ask the Minister why that paragraph should not remain in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. In some respects, we are talking about a symbolic gesture. Symbolic gestures are important. In this instance, a symbolic gesture underlines the fact that there is an ongoing process that is designed to stop fraudulent voting. Ballot papers
It is important that we highlightrather symbolically, I admitthe fact that an anti-fraud device is in use. The more we can do to underline the fact that the ballot has important processes in place to ensure its credibility and its true nature, the better. Why is that line from paragraph 6 in the direction for the guidance of voters in voting in the 1962 Act being removed? To remove it has little impact on any measures in the Bill, but to retain it has import, because that line highlights the fact that there are voting processes in place that protect against fraudulent ballot papers. Symbolism in this respect is important. We use symbolism in many ways, so why should not we use it here to highlight, both to the voter and to staff at polling stations, that there is an ongoing process to ensure that the ballot is protected from fraud? That must be important in democratic terms. Ms Harman: We have said all the way through the stages of the Bill that we have three concerns about electoral administration. We wish to ensure that everyone registers to vote, that as many people as possible vote and that no one fiddles the vote. Nothing in the Bill reduces security. On the contrary, it contains a great many provisions that increase security. The purpose of the amendment is to amend paragraph 61(5)(b) of schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendment would reinstate the requirement for voters, when placing their ballot paper in the ballot box in the polling station, to hold the ballot paper
Paragraph 61 applies to Northern Ireland elections only. The result of the amendment would be to distinguish between Northern Ireland local elections and parliamentary elections. I assume that that was not the intention. It may help if I clarify the changes that we are making to procedures for voting in polling stations. Those are set out elsewhere in schedule 1. At present, voters, when placing their vote in the ballot box, are required to hold out the ballot paper so that the presiding officer can see the official mark on the back of it. The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of the symbolism of that. I must confess that I did not even know that that was the rule. However, it is the rule, and it is obviously highly symbolic to some people. The ballot paper is shown to the presiding officer as a security measure. Its aim is to ensure that only valid ballot papers are placed in ballot boxes and, for example, to prevent a situation in which an invalid vote is put in the ballot box and a valid vote removed from a polling station, possibly as part of some attempted electoral fraud. The idea is that somebody would put another piece of paper in the ballot box and leave the polling station holding the real ballot. Column Number: 170 The Bill changes the rules that govern the use of the official mark on ballot papers at parliamentary elections. That mark currently takes the form of a perforation on the ballot paper. We shall replace the perforated official mark with another form of security markan appropriate security markingwhich may be bar codes, underprinting, special inks or watermark paper. Those changes will enable more automated procedures to be used in the printing of ballot papers, and in the dispatch of postal ballot papers. However, in future, the mark may appear on the front of the ballot paper only. For secrecy reasons, we do not think that we should specify that voters should show the presiding officer the official mark when voting. Do hon. Members understand that in future the bar code might be on the front of the ballot paper? If a person showed the bar code, it would show how they were voting. Previously, that was not a problem. However, we wish to maintain the existing security measures. The effect of paragraphs 71, 80 and 83 of schedule 1 will be that when voting, voters at parliamentary elections will be required to show the presiding officer the back of the ballot paper so as to disclose the number and other unique identifying marks such as the bar code before putting the ballot paper in the ballot box. Thus, there is no reduction in security for parliamentary elections as a result of changes to the official mark. However, in considering the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, we discovered that we may not have the right consistency across England, Wales and Northern Ireland in parliamentary and local elections. The hon. Gentleman might therefore have inadvertently brought a problem to our attention[Interruption.] But not the problem that he thought there was. I can deny him that satisfaction but I ask him to withdraw the amendment. We will let him, and the Committee, know the result of our investigations. Mr. Binley: I am delighted to hear that we have inadvertently found a reason for the amendment. On the basis of the Ministers reply about security, which was my main point, I understand that it has been thought about; it is an important issue and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill. Ms Harman: I shall refer to only a couple of points in the schedule in detail because most of it just implements the substantive points that we have discussed on a wide-ranging basis in Committee. First, I draw the attention of the Committee to the possibility in the Bill of parents taking their children into polling stations and showing them how to vote, which refers back to our previous debate. The idea is that when children are too young to vote, as well as attending citizenship classes they will be able to see their parents participating in democracy. Column Number: 171 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 23 November 2005 |