The Electoral Commission T Street Great Peter London SW1P 2HW Te Fa Info@Electoralcommission.Org.Uk Are an Independent Body That Was

Home , Adrian Ramsay, Age of candidacy, Charles Hendry, Mike Thomas (politician), Rudi Vis, Votes at 16

Age of electoral majority Report and recommendations April 2004 April

Age of electoral majority Report and recommendations

4114/RP/04.04 020 7271 0500 020 7271 0505 x l revelyan House The Electoral Commission T Street Great Peter London SW1P 2HW Te Fa [email protected] www.electoralcommission.org.uk are an independent body that was

The Electoral Commission 2004 © 1-904363-39-3 ISBN: We aim to We set up by the UK Parliament. gain public confidence and encourage people to take part in the democratic process within the UK by modernising the electoral process, promoting public awareness of electoral matters, and regulating political parties. The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Tel 020 7271 0500 Fax 020 7271 0505 [email protected] Mainwww.electoralcommission.org.uk headings

The Electoral Commission

We are an independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. We aim to gain public confidence and encourage people to take part in the democratic process within the UK by modernising the electoral process, promoting public awareness of electoral matters, and regulating political parties.

On 1 April 2002, The Boundary Committee for England (formerly the Local Government Commission for England) became a statutory committee of The Electoral Commission. Its duties include reviewing local electoral boundaries.

Age of electoral majority Report and recommendations

ISBN: 1-904363-39-3 1 Contents

Executive summary 3 4 Citizenship education 29 International comparators 3 Background 29 Minimum age limits and maturity 3 How important is citizenship education? 31 Citizenship education 4 Is citizenship education working? 32 What do the public think? 4 Citizenship post-16 36 Election turnout and wider participation 4 All or nothing? 5 5Public opinion 39 Conclusions and recommendations 5 The voting age – general public 39

1 Introduction 7 6 Election turnout and wider participation 45 The Electoral Commission 7 How important is turnout in this context? 45 Genesis of the project 7 Participation beyond elections 49 Scope 8 Priorities and principles 9 7 All or nothing? 53 Review process 9 Managing change 53 Consultation process 10 Variable ages? 54 Recommendations 11 Pilot schemes 55

2 International comparators 13 8 Conclusions and recommendations 59 The present context 13 Rationale 59 The Lower Saxony experience 15 Voting age 61 The importance of Candidacy age 62 international comparators 16 Appendices 3 Minimum age limits and maturity 19 Other minimum ages 19 Appendix A: Consultation activities What do we mean by maturity? 23 and media coverage 65 The importance of social awareness July 2003 65 and responsibility 24 August 66 The minimum candidacy age – September 66 ensuring greater maturity? 26 October 66 Post-October 67 Media coverage 67 2

Appendix B: Respondents to the consultation paper and consultation meetings 69 Academics 69 Councils 69 Political parties and groups 70 Politicians 71 Organisations 72 Young people, including youth groups, schools, and organisations representing young people 73 Others 76

Appendix C: Statistical breakdown of responses to consultation paper and surveys 79 Consultation paper questions 79 Responses to ICM survey, November 2003 81 Extracts from Nestlé Family Monitor/MORI survey 83

Appendix D: List of legal minimum ages 85

Appendix E: Recruitment and deployment of under 18s in the armed services of the UK 88 Policy considerations 89 Attachments 91 Description of safeguards maintained in respect of recruitment of under-18s into the armed forces of the United Kingdom 91 Draft Declaration to be made at ratification on the minimum age for recruitment into the armed forces of the United Kingdom 92 3 Executive summary

We set out here our views and There have been growing calls to reduce the recommendations on the minimum voting and/or candidacy age as a way of encouraging participation in representative minimum age of voting and democracy by young people. The Electoral candidacy for public elections Commission has undertaken this review over the in the United Kingdom. last 12 months, partly in recognition of that trend, and partly in response to a specific request from young people that we ‘seriously consider the arguments for lowering the voting age’.1 International comparators Almost all countries have a minimum voting age of 18. The picture is less clear with candidacy, but most countries similar to the UK have the same minimum age for both voting and candidacy. The situation in other countries sets the context for the debate, but should not be the conclusive argument. Minimum age limits and maturity Much has been made of other rights that apply at 16, for example marriage, joining the armed forces, and liability to taxation, but the detail of some of these rights is often more complex than may appear (for example, the need to gain parental consent in order to exercise the right before age 18). Furthermore, the age at which rights and responsibilities accrue varies greatly and no other single right is directly comparable with the right to vote or stand at elections. In the absence of a wider debate about the general age of majority (which goes beyond the Commission’s expertise and remit), each right should therefore be considered ultimately in its own context.

1 Young people and politics, Children and Young People’s Unit, July 2002, page 41. (www.cypu.gov.uk/corporate/downloads/CYPU_AdultAW.pdf).

Age of electoral majority: executive summary 4

Maturity is fundamental to the question of legal current state of citizenship teaching in minimum ages and the most important aspect schools. However, the Commission strongly of maturity in the context of electoral rights supports the principle of citizenship teaching, seems to be the development of social both during and beyond compulsory schooling. awareness and responsibility. All that we have Furthermore, were the subject to develop seen suggests that many young people under more fully, this may change the context for 18 would probably be ready to use the right to the debate on electoral rights. vote, but many others do not appear ready. Defining what is ‘sufficiently mature’ in relation What do the public think? to voting cannot be a precise test and must Most responses to our consultation supported therefore rest to a large extent on the views a voting age of 16, but more general opinion of society as a whole. In this regard a wider polling suggests strong support for keeping national debate about the general age of the current minimum. Even young people majority would be helpful, as it has been over themselves seem divided on whether they are 35 years since the last formal review. ready to be given voting rights at 16. Public opinion also seems opposed to lowering the Citizenship education candidacy age, but views on this appear less In the last few years there has been increasing strongly held. focus on citizenship teaching in formal education, although the way it is taught varies Electoral turnout and wider across the UK. It is not just factual political participation literacy that is important – other aspects The available evidence certainly suggests of citizenship education help young people that lowering the voting age would decrease understand ‘politics’ in the context of wider overall turnout in the short-term, and the society and their own communities. longer-term effects are disputed. In any event, There is some logic in the argument that we believe that the minimum age for electoral maintaining a gap between the end of participation should ultimately be determined compulsory citizenship education (at 16) on principles wider than the potential impact and the right to exercise electoral rights on election turnout. may be counter-productive. But the strength Lowering the voting and/or candidacy age of this argument depends on the quality of may help persuade younger people that the citizenship education. politicians were treating their views more Independent assessment suggests citizenship seriously. However, the fundamental issue for education is still very much in its infancy. young people seems to be that their views are Accordingly, it is not sensible to found any regarded as important and are considered recommendation about electoral rights on the properly by public policy-makers, not that the

Age of electoral majority: executive summary 5

particular age at which they can vote or stand inform consideration of individual age-based should be lowered. rights. We propose further research on the social and political awareness of those around All or nothing? age 18 with a view to undertaking a further A number of alternatives to wholesale change review of the minimum age for electoral were suggested to us, including: participation in the future. •different ages for different elections (e.g. The Electoral Commission would therefore voting at 16 for local elections and 18 for expect to undertake a further formal review of national elections); the minimum voting age within five to seven •pilot schemes for the minimum ages; and years of this report. We would encourage the Government to consider in the meantime • allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to register to initiating a wider review of the age of majority, vote voluntarily. given the length of time that has passed since the last one. At the current time, the Commission does not believe that any of these options would be Different considerations apply in relation to appropriate, although in any future review we candidacy. It is election to office (not candidacy) would like to explore in more detail the idea of that gives an individual political power and different minimum ages for different elections. responsibility. The candidate selection process of political parties and the public Conclusions and recommendations election process itself already provide the There appears to be insufficient current public with the means to prevent individuals justification for a change to the voting age at they consider insufficiently mature from being the present time. elected. Accordingly, in the context of the current voting age of 18, there seems no The Electoral Commission therefore reasonable argument why the candidacy age recommends that the minimum age for all should not be harmonised with the voting age. levels of voting in public elections in the UK should remain at 18 years for the time being. The Electoral Commission therefore recommends that the minimum age of However, circumstances may change the candidacy be reduced to 18. context significantly over the next few years. In particular, citizenship teaching may improve the social awareness and responsibility of young people. There may also (perhaps partly in response to this) be a wider debate about the general age of majority that can better

Age of electoral majority: executive summary

7 1 Introduction

This report sets out our views The Electoral Commission and recommendations on both 1.1 The Electoral Commission is a public body the minimum age at which an established on 30 November 2000 under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act individual is entitled to vote and 2000 (PPERA). The Commission is independent the minimum age at which an of Government and political parties, and is individual is entitled to stand as directly accountable to Parliament. Among the Commission’s statutory functions is a duty to a candidate in public elections keep under review a range of electoral and in the United Kingdom. political matters.2 Genesis of the project 1.2 It is widely recognised that election turnouts have been consistently declining for a number of years – a problem far from unique to the UK. At the last general election to the UK Parliament in 2001, overall turnout was just 59.4%, compared to 84% in 1950, 77.7% in 1992, and 71.6% in 1997 (see the Commission’s report, Election 2001: the official results). Turnout at the Scottish Parliament elections has dropped from 59% in 1999 to 49% in 2003, while in the National Assembly for Wales it has dropped from 46% in 1999 to 38% in 2003.

1.3 The age group least likely to vote is the young – estimated turnout of the 18–24 year- old age group has been 39% at the 2001 general election,3 and just 11% at the English local elections in 2002.4 Analysis by Martin Wattenberg using data from the CSES (Comparative Study of Electoral Systems) for advanced industrialised democracies, has identified a turnout ‘generation gap’ across the

2 Section 6 of PPERA. 3 MORI (2001) British Public Opinion: General Election June 2001. 4 NOP / The Electoral Commission, 2002.

Age of electoral majority: introduction 8

democratic world with the UK having the second Electoral Commission, and the media should largest gap between young and old.5 Similarly, take to help re-engage young people with the younger people in the UK are the least likely political process. The final report of that project7 group to hold elected office. Fewer than 1% of included a specific recommendation that The MPs in the House of Commons elected in 2001 Electoral Commission should ‘seriously consider are under 30 years of age, while just 0.1% of the arguments for lowering the voting age’. councillors on principal local authorities in England and Wales are aged under 25.6 1.6 Partly in response to that recommendation, partly as a response to the increasing call from 1.4 In response to these rates of participation a range of different respected sources, and partly in our institutions of formal representative in light of our general responsibility for keeping the democracy, the last few years have seen a law and policy on public elections in the UK under number of independent bodies established to review, the Commission announced in summer make recommendations on ways to encourage 2002 its intention to conduct a review of the democratic participation in the different parts minimum voting and candidacy ages in the UK. of the UK: in Scotland, the Working Group on Renewing Local Democracy, chaired by Richard Scope Kerley (reported June 2002); in England, the 1.7 With one exception, this review has looked at Commission on Local Governance, chaired by the minimum voting and candidacy ages for all Peter Hetherington (reported June 2002); and in public elections across the United Kingdom, from Wales, the Commission on Local Government parish/community council elections up to those Electoral Arrangements, chaired by Professor for the European Parliament. That exception is the Eric Sunderland OBE (reported July 2002). candidacy age for local government elections in Each of these bodies recommended a reduction Scotland, which is a matter that is devolved to the in either or both of the minimum voting and Scottish Parliament and therefore excluded from candidacy age as a way of encouraging the Commission’s statutory remit. interest and participation in local government by younger people. 1.8 This review has been undertaken as a discrete project, separate from other Commission 1.5 In 2001–2, a Government-led project policy reviews. However, it has inevitably been (‘YVote?/YNot?’) worked extensively with a informed by the wider initiatives within the group of young people from across England Commission to encourage participation by to identify the key steps that young people young people in the democratic process.8 themselves felt politicians, Government, The 7 Children and Young People’s Unit (2002) Young people and politics. 5M. Wattenberg (University of California) (2003) ‘Electoral Turnout: 8For example: the ‘Votes are Power’ campaign work The New Generation Gap’ in British Elections and Parties Review (www.votesarepower.com); our Outreach activity (vol. 13). Japan had the largest gap. (www.electoralcommission.org.uk/your-vote/outreach.cfm); 6 The Employers Organisation and the Improvement & Development and our chairing of the Youth Voting Network in 2002 and 2003 Agency, 2001. (www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/relatedwork.cfm).

Age of electoral majority: introduction 9

Priorities and principles factors (e.g. the broad issues of promoting 1.9 The Commission views the minimum greater participation in the democratic process voting and candidacy ages as of fundamental and the effect of citizenship education) and constitutional importance. Constitutional we seek to come to a judgment taking into change is not to be undertaken lightly and it account all the relevant issues raised by the is therefore right that it should be for those wide-ranging evidence that we received. proposing change to demonstrate the strength of their case before such a change can be Review process recommended. Our review has therefore 1.12 This report sets out the views and focused very much on identifying and testing recommendations of The Electoral Commission. the case for change, in terms of both the quality It has been prepared by staff of The Electoral of the arguments advanced and the strength of Commission working with a Project Board popular support for the change proposed. chaired by Electoral Commissioner Glyn Mathias and involving Dr Andrew Russell (Department 1.10 Clearly, The Electoral Commission has a of Government at the University of Manchester particular interest in the specific issue of what and lead author of the Commission’s Voter effect changes to the minimum voting age engagement and young people research report),9 would have on turnout and what effect changes and Graham Robb (Headteacher of Drayton to the minimum candidacy age would have on Secondary School, Banbury, and former member the numbers of younger people standing as of the Government’s Advisory Group on candidates and becoming elected representatives Citizenship). A Government official, Wanda (which itself may have some effect on turnout). Brown (Head of Participation in the Children However, it is important to stress that our and Families Directorate of the Department for interest goes well beyond the short-term effect Education and Skills), was recruited to the any change may have on purely numerical take- Project Board as an observer, due to her lead up of voting and candidacy rights. We are as involvement with the ‘YVote?/YNot?’ project much – if not more – interested in exploring referred to above. what may be the long-term effects of any change on the relationship between young 1.13 We did specifically consider whether or not people and the democratic process as a whole. to appoint a young person to the project board. However, in the event, we could not identify a 1.11 A common view that has been advanced suitable individual who was both sufficiently by some of those proposing a lower voting age interested and available and was also not is that the right to vote should be an entitlement already involved with an organisation committed at 16, for a variety of reasons. Whether or not to the campaign for a voting age of 16. such an entitlement should exist is, of course, strongly disputed by others. These points we explore, but we also look at a range of other 9 www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/voterengageyoungppl.cfm

Age of electoral majority: introduction 10

1.14 The Project Board has provided expert group into the consultation process, where advice and guidance on the key issues they might otherwise have been unaware throughout the life of the review. However, of the consultation or unsure how to get the views presented in this report are those of involved. We therefore published a six-page The Electoral Commission alone and therefore ‘young person’s version’ of the consultation do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the paper (16?-18?-21?), which we distributed to individual Project Board members. a range of organisations working with young people. We also published and distributed to Consultation process secondary schools across the UK a lesson 1.15 Following preliminary desk research plan on the issues, designed to be used in conducted in early 2003, we issued a public the context of Key Stage 3 or 4 Citizenship consultation paper (How old is old enough?) on Education teaching in England and the 14 July 2003. The consultation paper established equivalent parts of the curriculum in the some basic background facts about minimum devolved areas of the United Kingdom. We voting and candidacy ages around the world believe that this range of consultation activity and the minimum ages for other activities within helped to generate the size of response that the UK. It then went on to look at: the current we ultimately received. level of engagement of young people with the democratic process and elections in particular; 1.17 Additionally, in October 2003, the theme for the introduction of citizenship education; and the Local Government Association’s annual Local a summary of the arguments already in the Democracy Week was ‘Listening to Tomorrow’s public domain. Finally, the consultation paper Voters Today’. A large number of local authorities posed a series of questions about: took the opportunity to stage a public debate or other local event on the question of the minimum • whether the voting and/or candidacy age voting and/or candidacy age. Representatives should be changed; of the Commission were able to attend some • if so, to what age; of these events in person and we received many more reports of similar events by way • whether a lower minimum might help of a response to the consultation paper. encourage democratic participation by young Representatives of the Commission also people or increase levels of trust between attended a number of discussions in schools young people and politicians; and and colleges in different parts of the UK in order • what people’s experiences were of the new to gauge the views of young people on these citizenship education teaching in schools. questions. We have been very impressed by both the quantity and quality of the contributions 1.16 Given the particular relevance of these to the debate that arose from these events and issues to young people, we felt it appropriate would like to extend our thanks to all of those to take special measures to try and draw this involved in arranging them.

Age of electoral majority: introduction 11

1.18 Of course, we were not interested solely campaigning organisation, teachers, youth in the views of young people. As with all of our workers, and members of the public both major policy reviews, either the full version of the young and old. A list of respondents to the consultation paper or the two-page consultation consultation paper is included in Appendix B, summary was sent automatically to over 2,500 individual and corporate respondents, and the individuals or organisations with no particular source and nature of organised responses. agenda to represent the interests of young Responses can be viewed in person at the people. We also sought coverage for the Commission’s London office, except where consultation from the print and broadcast media, confidentiality was requested. both at the launch and towards the end of the consultation period. Although we had no control 1.20 In addition, on behalf of the Commission, over whether and to what extent the issue was ICM conducted 1,033 interviews with a covered, we are aware of coverage in at least 220 representative sample of UK adults aged 18+ national and local media outlets during the public between 19–20 November 2003. An additional consultation period. Hard copies of all the 170 interviews were conducted among 15–19 consultation materials were available on request year-olds making an overall sample (when added and electronic copies were downloadable from to the 80 18–19 year-olds in the general sample) the Commission’s website.10 We also arranged for of 250 among 15–19 year-olds. This research fringe meetings to be held on the issues at the was designed to measure the views both of autumn 2003 conferences of the Conservative, those who have reached voting age and those Labour, and Liberal Democrat parties. Appendix who have not, and to complement the responses A sets out a list of the consultation activities with from the Commission’s consultation exercise. which the Commission was directly involved, Findings from this research are discussed in the together with a list of the media outlets that we body of this report and key survey results are were aware gave coverage to our review during provided at Appendix C, along with the statistical the consultation period. analysis of the responses to the questions in our consultation paper and the results of recent 1.19 Altogether, the Commission received just surveys by others on the issues of voting and/or over 1,000 separate individual submissions to candidacy of which we are aware. Further details, the public consultation exercise, plus around including ICM’s full report, are available to 6,500 organised responses without more download from the Commission’s website.11 detailed submissions. These responses came from a very wide range of sources, including Recommendations politicians and political parties, schools, youth 1.21 In accordance with section 6 of PPERA, organisations, academics, the ‘Votes at 16’ this report has been submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, 10 During the 16 weeks of the consultation period, the ‘Consultation the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for papers’ page of our website was visited an average of 287 times each week. 11 www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/researchpub.cfm

Age of electoral majority: introduction 12

Constitutional Affairs, and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. While we have a statutory duty to keep electoral matters under review, we recognise that the Commission’s role with respect to electoral law is advisory. It is not for the Commission to make the final determination as to how the electoral process might be changed and we have no powers to ensure implementation of any recommendations for legal change we may make. It is for the Government to initiate and ultimately Parliament to decide on any changes to procedures and proposals for legislative change.

Age of electoral majority: introduction 13 2 International comparators

Our starting point is the approach The present context adopted by other countries around 2.1 On the issue of the voting age, there is a the world with regard to their clear majority of countries with a minimum age of 18, at least for national elections. We have minimum age limits for voting been able to identify some exceptions, with and candidacy. either higher or lower minimum ages, but these were very few in number.

2.2 Overall, of the 191 member states of the United Nations, the vast majority (including all the EU member states, Australia, Canada and the USA) have a minimum voting age of 18. We have identified only the following minimum voting ages that differ from 18: • 15 in Iran; • 16 in Brazil, Cuba, and Nicaragua; • 17 in East Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, the Seychelles and the Sudan; • 20 in Cameroon, Japan, South Korea, Nauru, Taiwan and Tunisia; • 21 in Central African Republic, Fiji, Gabon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Monaco, Morocco, Pakistan, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, and Tonga.

2.3 We have not been able to undertake case studies in any depth. However, we are aware that in Japan, for example, the voting age is harmonised with the customary age at which an individual is considered to become an adult.

2.4 In general terms, the ages referred to above are applicable to all levels of public election in the relevant country. However, there are variations in some areas:

Age of electoral majority: international comparators 14

• in Italy, an individual cannot vote in elections 23 or older, and a candidate for President has to the Senate (the second chamber of the to be at least 35. In Greece, a person can be a national parliament) until age 25; candidate in local elections at 21, but must be • in Germany the minimum age for municipal – 25 to get elected in national elections. In Ireland i.e. local, but not regional or national – it is 18 for local elections, 21 for the parliament elections in Lower Saxony was reduced from and 35 for the office of President. In Italy, it is 18 to 16 in 1995 and some of the other 18 for local elections, 25 for the Chamber of Bundesländer (regional administrative areas Deputies (first house of the national parliament) of Germany) subsequently followed suit; and 40 for the Senate (second house). • similarly, the regions of Carinthia, Burgenland, 2.7 Similarly, in the USA the minimum candidacy and Styria in Austria have reduced the age ranges from 18 for some city/borough minimum voting age for municipal and elections, through 21 for members of the state mayoral elections from 18 to 16; and House of Representatives, 25 for election to • in March 2002 the United States city of the federal House of Representatives, 30 for Cambridge, Massachusetts, voted to reduce the Senate, up to 35 for the Presidency. In Japan, its voting age from 18 to 17 for local elections it is 25 for municipal assemblies, mayoral (although this is yet to be ratified by the state elections and the House of Representatives legislature). In at least one state individuals (the first house), but 30 for provincial governor currently under 18 (but who will be 18 by the or the House of Councillors (the second house). date of the Presidential election in November 2.8 International comparators are also useful 2004) have also been entitled to vote in the for analysing how other countries approach the primaries to select a party’s candidate for the relationship between the voting and candidacy Presidential election. age – in particular, whether or not there should 2.5 There is a less clear picture when it comes be a difference between the two and, if so, what the extent of that difference should be. At least in to the minimum candidacy age. For all levels 12 of public election, the minimum age is 18 in Europe and the Commonwealth countries with Denmark, Finland, Germany (with the exception which we most frequently compare ourselves of mayoral elections), Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden, 19 in Austria, and 21 in 12 In our consultation paper we set out a table of the voting and candidacy ages for local elections in countries in or neighbouring Belgium. Eighteen is also the standard age of Europe. From that table, apart from the UK the only countries that candidacy for elections in Australia and Canada. do not have a harmonised voting and candidacy age are: Austria (only in the Bundesländer that have lowered the voting age to 16); Cyprus (18 for voting and 25 for candidacy), Germany (again only 2.6 However, the minimum age is determined in the Bundesländer that have lowered the voting age to 16), Greece by the level of election in many EU countries. (18 and 21 respectively), Luxembourg (18 and 21), Moldova (18 and 21), Romania (18 and 23), Russia (18 and 21), Turkey (18 and 25), In France, candidates in local elections must and the Ukraine (18 and 21). Apart from Liechtenstein (which has be 18, but for the national legislature must be a harmonised age of 20), every other country in Europe has a minimum age of 18 for both voting and candidacy.

Age of electoral majority: international comparators 15

(such as Australia and Canada), there is a adopt lowering the municipal voting age as clear pattern of having the same minimum local party policy. This was contentious within age for both voting and candidacy. the SPD, not least because survey work appeared to show that most of the public The Lower Saxony experience13 (including young people themselves) were 2.9 The experience of lowering the minimum opposed to a lower voting age. However, voting age from 18 to 16 for municipal elections a Bill was subsequently introduced and the in Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) has been legislation came into force in November 1995, a case study specifically raised by those the justification for which was as follows: favouring a lower voting age in support of their The reduction of the voting age... should occur view. In order to better inform our review and because empirical investigations have test the strength of that argument, we therefore shown that young people between the ages undertook a more detailed exploration of what of 16 and 18 are already mature enough has happened in that region of Germany. politically, but also have a strong interest in politics. They should therefore be given, 2.10 Constitutional law in Germany allows through the right to vote, the opportunity to individual Bundesländer to determine the share in the political process and decision- franchise for municipal elections within their making at municipal level.14 own geographical area (broadly equivalent to local elections in the UK). During the period 2.12 The first elections under the new franchise 1994 to 1995 the electoral law as regards the were held just under a year later, in September franchise had to be changed in any event in 1996. We were advised by the Lower Saxony order to implement new reciprocal arrangements authorities that statistical analysis of turnout in for EU citizens to vote in local elections in other the more rural areas could not be conducted, EU members states where they were resident. because with the low number of 16 and 17 year- At the same time, the University of Bielefeld had olds in those areas who were entitled to vote concluded research on the participation of there was a risk of infringing voter secrecy. young people in politics, which indicated that However, statistics were available from the young people were not disinterested in political municipal elections in the cities of Hanover issues, even if they were often disconnected and Braunschweig. from political structures. 2.13 In Hanover, turnout among 16 and 17 2.11 In this climate, the Young Socialists year-olds was 56.5%, compared with 49.1% pressed for the Lower Saxony branch of the among 18–24 year-olds and overall turnout of SPD (main centre-left party in Germany) to 57%. In Braunschweig, turnout among 16 and 17 year-olds was 50.4%, compared with 44.5% 13 We are most grateful to the officials of the Interior Ministry of Lower Saxony for their assistance in providing us with the information necessary for this part of the report. 14 Interior Ministry, Lower Saxony.

Age of electoral majority: international comparators 16

among 18–24 year-olds and overall turnout of have been no moves to restore the municipal 57.9%. Interestingly, the analysis in Hanover minimum voting age to 18, although there has was able to determine the breakdown of the also been no call from either the grass-roots or parties that 16 and 17 year-olds had voted for. the political party leaderships to extend the It is commonly assumed that young people minimum age of 16 to elections to the Landtag are more inclined to favour left-leaning political (State parliament) itself, or even to the parties, and one might have assumed that Bundestag (Federal parliament). the SPD would have been rewarded for enfranchising a new section of the populace by 2.16 Setting the Lower Saxony experience gaining a significant proportion of their votes. in the wider German context, in the few However, the statistics show that of the three years following Lower Saxony’s introduction main parties in Lower Saxony politics the SPD of a minimum voting age of 16 for municipal received the smallest share of the 16 and 17 elections, five other German Bundesländer year-old vote (21.1%), compared to the Greens introduced similar legislation (Germany (27.4%) and the centre-right CDU (37.3%). has 16 Bundesländer in total).15 In two of these (Saxony-Anhalt and Hesse), the CDU 2.14 Unfortunately, no follow-up survey work subsequently gained political control, but was done in the next municipal elections in only in Hesse has the minimum voting age Lower Saxony, held in September 2001. It is been re-established at 18. therefore impossible to know whether the turnout rate of 16 and 17 year-olds was carried 2.17 The Saxony-Anhalt municipal elections in through either in terms of those who were 16 1999 are the only figures we have with which to and 17 in 1996 choosing to vote again in 2001 compare the Lower Saxony turnout rates of 16 or in terms of similar or higher turnout among and 17 year-olds. In Saxony-Anhalt, across all those who were 16 and 17 in 2001. the main cities (Kreisfreie Stadte), the turnout rate of the 16–18 age group was around 33%, 2.15 What has been the effect of the reduced around 32% for the 18–21 age group, around voting age in Lower Saxony beyond bare 24% for the 21–25 age group, and 38% across election turnout? In Lower Saxony itself, we all age groups. were advised that there had not been significant change in the policies or strategic direction of The importance of international the municipalities in the intervening period, comparators although there was a feeling that some groups 2.18 A number of respondents to our of 16 and 17 year-olds were getting more consultation paper pointed out that no other engaged in local politics. Despite a subsequent country to which we would normally compare change in political control in the Bundesland ourselves in a socio-economic or constitutional to a centre-right coalition led by the CDU (who opposed the lower voting age in 1995/6), there 15 The five Bundesländer were: Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony-Anhalt, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Hesse.

Age of electoral majority: international comparators 17

context has a voting age lower than 18 (beyond the municipal level in some areas of Germany and Austria). From their point of view, this placed the onus very firmly on those seeking a lower voting age in the UK to demonstrate a clear and convincing case why it would be right to break with the established view among like-minded countries.

2.19 The widespread acceptance of a minimum voting age of 18 in the international community supports the proposition that those seeking change should make the case for it.

2.20 It is only fair to apply the same logic to the candidacy age. In light of the fact that most of those closely comparable countries also have a minimum candidacy age of 18, it could reasonably be argued that the onus in the UK is on those seeking to make the case for retaining the current minimum age of 21.

2.21 Ultimately, however, the Commission believes that the situation in other countries should only ever set the backdrop to the debate and should not be the conclusive argument for either change or the status quo. In the remaining chapters we therefore look at some of the more detailed arguments as they relate specifically to the UK.

Age of electoral majority: international comparators

19 3 Minimum age limits and maturity

In this chapter we look at other legal Other minimum ages minimum ages, which are often held 3.1 In our consultation paper we listed a up as comparators to the minimum number of the other legal minimum ages that are in force in the UK. An expanded and ages for voting and candidacy. updated list of these is attached at Appendix D. We also look more generally at Looking at other minimum ages can potentially what we mean by maturity in the be of some use in seeking to establish in broad terms the age at which society believes an context of elections and examine appropriate level of social responsibility has the relationship between the voting been developed in its young people. and candidacy age. 3.2 Those favouring a lowering of the voting age have put significant emphasis on the fact that other important rights and responsibilities accrue at 16. For example, rights to marry and join the armed forces, and liability to pay income tax all feature heavily in the campaigning materials of the official ‘Votes at 16’ campaign. Conversely, those favouring a retention of the current minimum voting age of 18 point to the low take-up of many of these rights by 16 year-olds, question the relevance to electoral participation of the particular rights chosen, and suggest that the most commonly accepted age of reaching adulthood remains 18.

Rights accruing at 16 3.3 We should first clarify the detail and implications of some of the most prominent rights and obligations referred to by those seeking a lowering of the minimum voting age. The frequent reference we saw in consultation responses to the liability to pay tax at 16 and the principle of ‘No taxation without representation’ relates specifically to the liability to pay income tax. The relationship between age and taxation in general is more

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 20

complex, for example people younger than Rights and obligations in practice 16 are liable to pay indirect taxes, such as VAT. 3.6 In examining these issues, the Commission 3.4 In respect of the right to marry and join the has also noted that many of the rights that armed forces, these are what might be termed accrue at 16 are exercised in practice by ‘split rights’, where a 16 or 17 year-old may relatively few young people (see Table 1). exercise the right only with the consent of a Table 1: Take-up of rights accruing at 1617 parent or guardian, and only at 18 may exercise the right wholly independently.16 Such an Number of 16 and 17 1,485,146 (2.5% approach would clearly be unacceptable year-olds in the UK18 of the total UK in relation to voting – where any parental population) involvement in the exercise of the franchise Marital status of 16–24 Married – 5% could amount to a breach of the secret ballot. year-olds, by percentage19 (1% of all those There are also some very specific caveats that married) attach to the right to join the armed forces. Co-habiting –12% Firstly, a new recruit will generally spend at Single – 83% least six months in basic training before being 16 and 17 year-olds 5,828 (0.4% of all posted to an operational unit and potentially serving in the UK 16 and 17 year ‘seeing action’. There are also specific Regular armed forces20 olds and 2.9% of safeguards put in place by the UK to ensure – the total regular as far as possible – that any member of the armed forces armed forces aged 16 or 17 is not placed in strength) a combat situation. (A detailed explanation of the rules is set out at Appendix E.) 3.7 In relation to the responsibility to pay income tax, the number of those actually 3.5 Nevertheless, it is evident that young (rather than potentially) liable to pay income people of 16 and 17 have the legal right to tax in 2000–01 was around 105,000.21 undertake some very responsible activities. This represents 7.2% of 16 and 17 year-olds There is arguably an increasing trend to recorded in the 2001 Census and 0.4% of lower minimum legal ages in a number of all those actually liable to pay income tax in areas, as young people are widely considered to mature sooner than they have previously. 17 All figures relate to the year 2001, as this enables us to set them in the context of the official figures for 16 and 17 year-olds obtained via the UK-wide Census held that year. 18 Census 2001, where the total UK population was 58,789,194. 19 Great Britain General Household Survey, 2001. The data does 16 Scotland is an exception as far as the right to marry in the United not break down to just 16 and 17 year-olds. Kingdom is concerned, as no parental consent is needed at age 16 or 17 (hence Gretna Green – the southernmost town in Scotland – is 20 Defence Analytical Services Agency traditionally the destination for those from England or Wales seeking (www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/natstats.html). marriage without parental consent). 21 Analysis and Research Department, Inland Revenue.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 21

the financial year 2000–01.22 By contrast, to 16 could have implications for the protection the number of those actually (rather than from exploitation of children of that age. While potentially) liable to pay income tax in 1998–9 supporting in principle a reduction of the voting was around 111,000.23 age to 16, the report stated that:

3.8 Of course, whether or not a right will We would further recommend that the be utilised (or an obligation imposed) in Government satisfies itself that the current significant numbers is not the most important legal protections afforded to 16 to 18 year-olds issue to take into account in considering would not be undermined by any reduction in whether it should be extended to a particular the voting age before coming to any decision.26 group of people. However, this factor does have a role to play in those considerations, and we 3.11 The protection of children and young look further at take-up in relation to election people is an important matter. However, a full rights in a subsequent chapter on ‘Election and detailed consideration of the issue is turnout and wider participation’. beyond the competence and expertise of The Electoral Commission and would require a wider Potential loss of protection debate about whether the general age of 3.9 A particular issue that we have seen raised majority should continue to be 18 and the in the debate on the legal minimum age for extent to which other individual age-based rights voting is that of child protection. In relation to should or may not conform with that age. the UK, this flows particularly from the extensive More than 35 years after the Latey Committee review and recommendations of the 1967 report last looked at the issue, it would seem not of the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority,24 unreasonable for the Government to initiate which led to the Family Law Reform Act 1969 a similar review in the near future. and the lowering of the age of majority from 21 Establishing a benchmark to 18. In the international context, while there is some variation between individual countries, Marriage and sex is up to you and affects the protections set out in the United Nations you, but voting affects the whole country.27 Convention on the Rights of the Child25 apply 3.12 The problem faced in seeking to establish to individuals up to the age of 18. what the ‘right’ minimum age might be by comparing other age-based rights is that the 3.10 The recent report of the Welsh Affairs current range of legal rights in the UK provides Select Committee in the House of Commons noted a concern that reducing the voting age 22 Inland Revenue 26 The Empowerment of Children and Young People in Wales, (www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/g_t04_1.htm). The Stationery Office (HC 177-I), January 2004 (www.parliament. the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/ cmwelaf/ 23 Analysis and Research Department, Inland Revenue. 177/17702.htm). 24 Cm.3342. 27 Response by ‘Katscot’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary 25 For the full text of the Convention see: www.unicef.org/crc/fulltext.htm. school pupils on the voting and candidacy age 1–17 October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 22

no clear benchmark. For every important legal Linking voting to take-up of other rights and right that accrues at 16 and is used to support responsibilities at 16? the argument for change, a similarly important I believe the voting age should be lowered, right that only accrues at age 18 is used to but only for people who pay taxes. Imagine support the argument for retaining the status having to pay taxes to a government you quo. So, for example, while we have seen have no say in? Once you get a job, and above some of the important rights and have to pay taxes, you must be responsible responsibilities that accrue at 16, it is not enough to vote in an election.28 until age 18 that an individual can enter into a contract in his or her own right, serve on a jury, 3.15 Some of the respondents to our or make a will. consultation exercise suggested that, in order to address some of the arguments 3.13 Additionally, although most of the better- made about other rights and responsibilities known legal rights now cluster around a minimum accruing at 16, the right to vote at 16 or 17 age of either 16 or 18, there are some that accrue might only be granted to those who made use at ages below 16, some at 17, and some above of – or were actually affected by – those other 18. Attempts to establish any sort of consistency rights and responsibilities, in particular the right are further frustrated by the ‘split rights’ where to join the armed forces and the responsibility a 16 or 17 year-old may exercise the right only to pay income tax. with the consent of a parent or guardian, but at 18 may exercise the right wholly independently. There’s a precedent. In 1918 those who had served in the First World War were given the 3.14 Ultimately, the value of comparing the vote at 19, two years lower than the rest of minimum voting and candidacy age to other the population.29 legal minimum ages for social and civic activities is limited. Looking at other age-based 3.16 As we have stated above, we are not rights can be used to try and detect a pattern persuaded by the use of other specific age- that reveals when society believes individuals related rights to justify the arguments in this to have generally reached adulthood. However, debate – whether they are prayed-in-aid of those no other right is so directly comparable to the seeking a lower, maintained, or higher minimum right to vote or stand as a candidate that the voting or candidacy age. In line with this view, and minimum age at which it accrues should be in the absence of any recent formal review of the mirrored in those rights. The minimum age at general age of majority, we do not regard it as which each legal right and responsibility should appropriate to recommend linking the right to accrue should ultimately be decided in light of vote to the take-up of any other specific age- its own unique factors and issues. 28 Response by ‘SarahD’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. 29 Consultation response from Philip Cowley of Nottingham University’s School of Politics, 29 September 2003.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 23

related right or the actual (rather than potential) What’s to say that a 16 year-old doesn’t accrual of age-related responsibilities. know what they’re talking about? I don’t think it’s very fair of you to stereo-type teenagers What do we mean by maturity? like that.32 I am totally up for lowering the voting age!! They may well vote as their families do – so I think that every1 gets a really bad do most adults. They may not understand the impression. It is the few bad ones that ruin complexities – who does? They may vote it for the rest of the teenagers!30 idealistically instead of practically – well that 33 The age difference between a boy of 16 and would make a pleasant change. 18 may not be great, but in terms of 3.18 In general terms, there are many things personal development it is vast. Changes in that might be taken to be included within the intellectual understanding, in emotional and overall concept of maturity: physical maturity, physical development as well as analytical intellectual development, and social awareness perception, were and are considerable and and responsibility (within which we would it is quite clear to me it would be quite wrong include the concept of ‘experience of life’). to burden such youngsters with concern about the franchise. The franchise and adult 3.19 In the constitutional sphere, physical maturity should work together.31 maturity has little relevance: while it might 3.17 Maturity is frequently held to be a have a bearing in relation to the risk of fundamental basis on which the question of intimidation of younger voters, such concerns a legal minimum age should be determined. could equally arise in relation to the elderly Common ground between those who have or physically disabled people. As a matter entered the debate about minimum voting and of principle, the entitlement to participate candidacy ages is that whichever minimum in the democratic process should not be age is chosen, individuals of that age must circumscribed by concern about the risk of be capable of exercising the rights in a mature intimidation inherent in physical frailty. In way. However, there are various ways of defining respect of intellectual development, while it what maturity means, and the state should be may be highly desirable that voters are well- clear what it means by the word in relation to developed in this sense, this is not a criterion electoral participation when it legislates to that is applied to those aged 18 or over in establish minimum voting and candidacy ages. determining whether they should be entitled to vote. However, the social awareness and responsibility element of ‘maturity’ outlined above is worthy of further consideration. 30 Response by ‘hypedonsugar’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. 32 Response by ‘littles’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary 31 Consultation response from Reverend Canon E. R. Turner (former school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. chaplain at a major boys school), July 2003. 33 Consultation response from Alison Kerr, October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 24

The importance of social 3.22 In this context, lack of experience of life is awareness and responsibility an argument that is frequently raised by those seeking to maintain or raise the current minimum A lifetime of teaching young people of all ages. However, it is arguable that it is the capacity academic abilities, and of bringing up my to respond to life experiences rather than the own three children, has persuaded me that quantity of experience that is more important. The giving personal responsibility encourages number of experiences is of lesser importance 34 responsible actions. than the ability to learn from those experiences 3.20 The 1998 report of the Government that are encountered and the ability to consider advisory group (chaired by Professor Bernard and respond to new experiences and information Crick) that led to the introduction of citizenship in an appropriate manner. education in England,35 identified ‘social and moral responsibility’ as one of the three key 3.23 There is some research evidence to factors that marked the active citizen: suggest that real social awareness develops from the early teens. For example, the work of Some may think this aspect of citizenship Adelson and O’Neil in the 1960s36 indicated hardly needs mentioning; but we believe it to that around the ages of 13–15 was the time be near the heart of the matter. Here guidance when most young people developed a genuine on moral values and personal development sense of community as a separate entity and are essential pre-conditions of citizenship. accordingly began to appreciate the aspects of 3.21 These are particularly relevant issues political debate that focused on wider benefits when one is considering rights to participate to society rather than just immediate benefits in elections in a democracy, as the responsible to the individual. exercise of those rights requires an individual to consider the effects of their actions not just 3.24 In terms of the social responsibility of on themselves, but also on wider society. We young people, our own research report Voter therefore believe that any age group to whom the engagement and young people revealed that franchise and/or the right to stand as a candidate the primary reason for not voting among the is extended should have developed a sufficient youngest group of the current electorate (18-24) appreciation of and consideration for wider was that they did not feel sufficiently informed society, as well as self, when making decisions. and they felt it was better not to vote at all than to do so in an ill-informed way. This seems to us a highly responsible attitude that recognises that voting rights are not to be taken lightly.

34 Consultation response from Mrs M. Paynton, October 2003. 35 Advisory Group on Citizenship/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 36 See, in particular, Adelson, J. and O’Neil, R. (1966) ‘The Growth of September 1998, Education for citizenship and the teaching of Political Ideas in Adolescence: The Sense of Community’ in the democracy in schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp.295–306.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 25

3.25 Similarly, our consultation activities that 3.27 Of course, some – perhaps many – will involved young people demonstrated to us develop social and emotional maturity earlier that there are many young people below the than the age prescribed in law, and we recognise current minimum voting age who were perfectly that the law can seem arbitrary in these capable of taking a responsible attitude to the circumstances. Parallels are sometimes drawn issues of voting and candidacy. between the campaign for a lower voting age and I personally believe myself to be a mature historical struggles for the enfranchisement of the independent thinker with a vested interest working classes, women, and ethnic minorities. in politics (mainly as I am studying it). However, contemporary law in those historical Nevertheless I still feel that I do not have the contexts presented a permanent bar to electoral experience or the knowledge to make an participation for those groups of people, informed and independent vote.37 whereas by its very nature a statutory minimum age merely imposes a wait – albeit that some I myself would not know what to do with my find that wait undesirable and feel it unjustified. vote and I am studying politics for my AS level in school… even though this is not What is ‘sufficient’? true for all sixteen year-olds, it certainly is 38 3.28 Of course, the difficulty arises when we for most. seek to define what is meant by ‘sufficient’ in I think that the voting age should be lowered the context of maturity. Factual knowledge of – BUT ONLY if there is more information the structures and processes of UK democracy available and given to youngsters.39 could be measured quite accurately. However, formal testing as a means of determining 3.26 All of this suggests to us that young eligibility to vote or stand would, we believe, be people under the age of 18 have probably opposed by most people in the UK (it certainly begun to develop the important requisites of was not something that was countenanced to social and emotional maturity. Certainly, the any significant degree in the responses to our range of minimum ages that are established in consultation paper). Additionally, as we have law for different types of activity suggests that seen, intellectual development is just one society recognises that young people are still aspect of what we consider maturity to mean very much developing socially and emotionally in this context: the other aspects are equally during this time of their lives. important (if not more so), but are extremely hard – if not impossible – to quantify. Ultimately, defining what is ‘sufficient’ can never be framed

37 Consultation response from a student at Loreto Grammar in exact measurable terms, but must rest to a School, Omagh. large extent on the broad views of society as a 38 Consultation response from 16 year-old student at Loreto whole as to the age by which ‘sufficient’ levels Grammar School, Omagh. have been developed. 39 Response by ‘trillian’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 26

The minimum candidacy age – Some people younger than 21 are serious ensuring greater maturity? about politics. I think 18 is a more appropriate age [as a minimum for candidacy].41 3.29 The main argument raised in support of a minimum candidacy age of 21 is that a At the age of eighteen... people may be reasonable period of time should be allowed embarking on a career and if they wish to to pass between the right to vote and the right become an MP, then they should be given to be a candidate: in effect, that a greater degree the opportunity to do so.42 of maturity is required to act as a political 3.32 Furthermore, the right to stand as a representative than to elect such a representative. candidate confers no real powers or obligations We have examined during this review the strength in and of itself. Being a candidate merely of that argument, and the extent to which the enables an individual to put themselves before current legal framework provides the most the public for detailed scrutiny as to whether effective means of securing the desired outcome. or not they would be suitable to hold political office. Before any candidate can obtain power 3.30 The Commission fully recognises the over public policy, or indeed have any day-to- concerns that many people have about the day control over public decision-making as ability of individuals under the age of 21 to an elected representative, they must first – act effectively in elected public office. by definition – be elected. I think that even 21 year-olds have very little life experience… an MP under the age of 3.33 At present, legislation bars all below a 21 wouldn’t gain the trust of the public… certain age from elected office by applying That is not to say that everyone under the a minimum age to candidacy. Through this age of 21 is irresponsible, I simply think they means, it is hoped to ensure that a sufficient are inexperienced as far as politics and the degree of maturity is evident in all who might running of a country goes.40 become elected representatives. However, the election process itself already provides a far 3.31 Elected representatives should be capable more subtle and flexible mechanism by which of demonstrating a degree of maturity that goes the electorate can prevent candidates they beyond the minimum required of those who are consider undesirable or inappropriate from entitled simply to vote. In general, we also agree obtaining the power of elected office. that those under 21 would be less likely to be able to – or would often have no desire to – act 3.34 The public ballot process is, in our view, effectively as an elected representative. However, both the most important and appropriate means we believe that it is not beyond the realms of by which such candidates are filtered out. possibility that some people of such an age would have both the desire and ability to do so. 41 Consultation response from a sixth form student at Trinity High School, Redditch. 40 Consultation response from 16 year-old student at Loreto Grammar 42 Consultation response from 16 year-old student at Loreto Grammar School, Omagh. School, Omagh.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity 27

Most candidates will also need to pass through chapter on ‘International comparators’, the the preliminary stage of a political party approach in other countries should only set selection process before getting onto the ballot the context for the UK and not be the ultimate paper at all. This provides an additional non- determining factor. legislative filter to screen out people that the electorate may consider unsuitable. 3.37 Our most significant reservation as regards a complete abolition of a statutory Any1 should be allowed 2 go up for minimum candidacy age is that there may candidacy. It’s up to the public to vote for 43 be particular social circumstances that the best person. come into play at younger ages that make Age should not bar one from electoral office it inappropriate to allow anybody of those ages and it should be for the electorate to judge to be a candidate – for example, individuals whether a candidate is sufficiently mature may still be subject to compulsory schooling. 44 to represent their constituency. In light of our views that 18 is the age 3.35 It has been suggested that there should of adulthood and that full citizenship be no minimum candidacy age at all and that commences at that age, it is a logical step determining the fitness of individuals to hold for the minimum candidacy age to be elected office should rely only on the other filter consistent. We thus support a reduction of mechanisms of party selection processes and the age from 21 to 18 for all elections. While the ballot box referred to above. However, the there may be questions over whether an 18, Commission recognises that there may be 19, or 20 year-old has sufficient experience difficulties with this approach. to be a Parliamentarian, we believe that such subjective considerations are best 3.36 It would be anomalous to allow candidates assessed by political parties during their to stand who were not themselves able to vote, candidate selection process and ultimately although there have been historical precedents: by the electorate.45 before the equalisation of the voting age at 21 for both men and women in 1928, women could 3.38 Overall, in light of the existing non- stand for election to Parliament at age 21, but not legislative safeguards, there seems no vote until the age of 30, while until 1981 prisoners particular reason why the minimum candidacy could stand in elections, but not vote. Equally, age should not be harmonised with the current as far as we are aware, every other country minimum age prescribed for voting at 18. If the worldwide has a statutory minimum candidacy voting age were to be reduced to below 18, age, although as we have stated in our earlier then the arguments for harmonisation would need to be looked at afresh, taking into account the specific practical problems that might arise 43 Response by ‘Shrek’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. in relation to candidates under the age of 18. 44 Consultation response from Leanne Wood AM (Plaid Cymru Shadow Social Justice Minister, National Assembly for Wales), August 2003 45 Consultation response from the Conservatives, October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: minimum age limits and maturity

29 4 Citizenship education

Across the UK, recent years have Background seen a greatly increased focus 4.1 In this chapter we explore the implications on the teaching of ‘citizenship’ in of citizenship education for the debate on the minimum voting and candidacy age – now and schools. Here we look at how this is in the future. being implemented, with particular regard to the effect it is having on England young people’s knowledge of and It has been heartening to see the introduction of ‘citizenship’ onto the National Curriculum, interest in elections and democracy. although without the opportunity to actively participate in the electoral and wider political process, such classes will not be as effective as they could be.46 4.2 After the 1997 general election, the Government established a National Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. The Group’s final report in September 199847 recommended ways in which schools could develop in young people the knowledge, skills and aptitudes to make their voices heard and play a positive role in their communities.

4.3 The report was clear that citizenship education was not merely the revival of the old-style ‘civics’ lessons. It identified three basic strands (subsequently set out in the guidance material for schools): • Social and moral responsibility: Pupils learning – from the very beginning – self-confidence and socially and morally responsible behaviour both in and beyond the classroom, towards those in authority and towards each other.

46 Consultation response from the Young Greens (youth wing of the Green Party of England and Wales), October 2003. 47 www.qca.org.uk/ages3-14/downloads/crick_report_1998.pdf

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 30

•Community involvement: in 2000 to make citizenship education Pupils learning about becoming helpfully compulsory in English secondary schools involved in the life and concerns of their was not implemented until September 2002. neighbourhood and communities, including learning through community involvement Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and service to the community. 4.6 In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government •Political literacy: and the Qualifications, Curriculum and Pupils learning about the institutions, problems Assessment Authority for Wales have taken the and practices of our democracy and how to slightly different approach of introducing an make themselves effective in the life of the element of ‘Active Citizenship’ into the National nation, locally, regionally and nationally through Curriculum for Key Stages 1-4 through the skills and values as well as knowledge – a Personal and Social Education framework. concept wider than political knowledge alone. Originally a non-statutory framework,49 from 4.4 In England, citizenship teaching has September 2003, PSE has formed part of the subsequently been delivered at Key Stages 1 basic statutory curriculum for maintained schools and 2 (ages 5–11) as part of a non-statutory in Wales. Furthermore, the National Assembly framework including personal, social and for Wales is introducing a requirement for all health matters, and at Key Stages 3 and 4 maintained schools in Wales to establish a (11–16) as a distinct statutory entitlement: school council, through which pupils should be able to gain greater experience of the principles for citizenship at Key Stages 3 and 4... it is and practice of democracy, grounded in important for young people to have a clear their own immediate environment. statutory entitlement to learning about their duties, responsibilities and rights as citizens, 4.7 In Scotland, the 5–14 Curriculum Programme the nature of democratic government and for pupils between those ages offers a number the skills needed to play an active part in of opportunities for pupils to learn about spiritual, their school, neighbourhood, communities moral, social and cultural development and and society. citizenship under the national guidelines for 4.5 The Government deliberately took a light Personal and Social Development, Religious touch approach, with a programme of study and Moral education and Environmental based on learning outcomes to allow scope Studies. ‘Values and Citizenship’ is one of five for schools to be innovative in the manner of national priorities that the Scottish Executive delivery. The Government also developed some have identified in providing direction to schools support for the training of teachers, and the and local authorities on the statutory framework provision of guidance and resource materials.48 for schools education in Scotland.50 In order to allow schools time to build good 49 For more detailed information, see the practice in this area, the statutory order made www.accac.org.uk/pse_framework/PSE.html 50 Further information on the teaching of citizenship in Scotland, can be 48 For examples, see the DfES Citizenship website at obtained from the website of Learning and Teaching Scotland, see www.dfes.gov.uk/citizenship www.ltscotland.com/citizenship

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 31

The Scottish Youth Parliament believes address effectively the comparatively low levels of that... citizenship education should be political literacy among young people and thereby introduced as a mainstream subject in all strengthen the case for extending the franchise. Scottish secondary schools.51 4.11 The Commission believes there is great 4.8 In Northern Ireland, pilot work on citizenship value in the teaching of citizenship education education has been carried out since 1998. and fully supports the aims and objectives A phased introduction of citizenship education behind the initiative. As regards the political at Key Stages 3 and 4 was begun in September literacy strand of learning in the English 2002 and is due to roll out over a four-year curriculum (and its equivalents elsewhere period. It is therefore expected that from 2006 in the UK) there is clear benefit to seeking all pupils in post-primary education will have a to provide young people with a better factual statutory entitlement to citizenship education. understanding of the roles and responsibilities 4.9 Additionally, piloting of a GCSE in ‘Learning of the institutions of democracy and elected for Life and Work’ at Key Stage 4 began in representatives and, most importantly, an September 2003 in 50 schools in Northern appreciation of how the individual can engage Ireland and it is expected that the course will with and affect the democratic process. be available to all schools from September 4.12 We have been aware that some people 2004. A four-year longitudinal research project believe the other two strands of citizenship looking at the effect of the introduction of education referred to in paragraph 4.3 above, citizenship education in Northern Ireland has while important to society generally, have little recently begun, conducted by the University of direct relevance to the debate about voting and Ulster, but at the time of writing there were not candidacy age. By contrast, the Commission yet any published findings from that research. feels that all three strands are relevant to the debate about the minimum age for voting and How important is candidacy. We have previously mentioned the citizenship education? development of social and moral responsibility It is compulsory to study RS lessons in school. as an important factor in determining whether It would be much more of an advantage to people of a particular age should be study politics instead. Politics is not boring enfranchised. The community involvement when we are educated correctly about it.52 aspect of citizenship teaching is also key to developing an individual’s ability to understand 4.10 The introduction of citizenship education basic political issues, as it helps young people in schools is seen by those seeking to lower appreciate the wider social aspects of politics the minimum ages as a development that will and, often, more clearly identify the relationship 51 Response from the Scottish Youth Parliament. between policies and real life experiences and 52 Response by ‘Elizadam’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary problems in their own communities. school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 32

4.13 Supporters of a lowering of the minimum Is citizenship education working? voting and/or candidacy age also point to the We do not have the right understanding of apparent anomaly of teaching young people government or politics to use our vote wisely.54 about rights in a democratic society during their compulsory schooling years, and then denying In our opinion the problem lies deeper. them some of the most fundamental of those We feel that 16 year-olds do not receive democratic rights for two or more years after substantial education of political matters 55 the end of that schooling. to make a valid decision.

Our young people can be equipped to be 4.15 During the course of this review, we have ‘good citizens’, but when they reach the end examined the evidence available with regard to of this course the system must be ready to the impact of formal citizenship education. Our accommodate them. Logically, the right to consultation paper looked at three early reports vote must accrue at the end of compulsory in relation to citizenship education and political education and the democratic system should knowledge among young people in England: be easily accessible to everyone at this point. • The July 2002 OFSTED survey report To deny the right to vote for a further two years Preparation for the introduction of citizenship is to waste a lot of good work.53 education in secondary schools 2001–2.56 4.14 There is some logic in the argument that •A November 2002 report for the Department 57 enforcing a gap of two or more years between for Education and Skills looking at the civic the end of compulsory citizenship education knowledge of English 14 year-olds contrasted (at least in England) and the right to exercise with young people of the same age in a some of the most fundamental citizen’s rights variety of other countries worldwide. in a democracy may be counter-productive • The first of the annual interim reports from an and even encourage disaffection from the eight-year study for the DfES by the National democratic process. However, this argument Foundation for Educational Research into is predicated on citizenship education being the implementation of citizenship education universal and effective in the first place. We in English schools, published in November therefore look now at the evidence of how 200258 (thus covering primarily the period effectively or otherwise citizenship is, in fact, immediately before citizenship education being taught in schools. We also look later in became compulsory in England). this chapter at the continued importance of citizenship education post-16. 54 Response by ‘rosithom’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. 55 Response by ‘sarapars’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. 56 www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/docs/2663.pdf 57 www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR375.pdf 53 Consultation response from Ross Johnson, July 2003. 58 www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR416.pdf

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 33

4.16 Issues raised in common across these knowledge has fallen [since a similar survey reports included the patchy nature of the was conducted in 1976].60 quality of implementation of citizenship education: considerable variation in schools’ 4.18 Looking at the difference the teaching of responses to the new requirements… one in citizenship had made in the space of a year, ten [schools’] progress towards implementation however, there were more positive indicators. of citizenship was unsatisfactory’ and the fact that Although schools appeared to have: there was much work still to do: ‘schools ...overestimated the extent to which the and community organisations have untapped citizenship education topics were covered potential to influence positively the civic [compared to pupils’ perceptions]... The results preparation of young people’. Although appeared very encouraging for proponents of this was not due to a lack of recognition by citizenship education. Students who were at teachers that the subject was important: schools with higher levels of citizenship ‘teachers recognise the importance of education in [2000] (at least by student report) citizenship education in preparing young were significantly more civically knowledgeable people for citizenship and feel that schools [in 2001] (though not [in 2000]). have a strong role to play’. 4.19 In June 2003 OFSTED published a further 4.17 Since our consultation paper was written, report National curriculum citizenship: planning there have been further published reports and implementation 2002/03,61 which resulted that we can now draw on to see what effect from visits to 25 secondary schools during the citizenship education is having. The first of autumn term 2002 and the spring term of 2003 these is the research report on Social capital, i.e. the first two terms after the subject became participation and the causal role of socialization,59 compulsory in England. The schools were which looked – among other issues – at the chosen either on the basis of their 2001/2 impact of formal citizenship education in terms inspections having revealed planning for the of its association with higher civic knowledge, introduction of compulsory citizenship, or by engagement and trust among young people. recommendation of the Local Education Authority. The research surveyed 1,249 school pupils Overall, the report found that there was still much aged 15–17 across 24 state schools in work to be done before most schools could be Hertfordshire – once in 2000 (just as citizenship considered to be delivering effective citizenship was being formally introduced, but was not yet teaching, finding that (among other things): compulsory) and again a year later. The results • In over half of the 25 schools, the management in relation to levels of political knowledge of the introduction of citizenship has been among the young people were not promising: unsatisfactory, mainly because the full The basic descriptive data confirms that levels implications of citizenship as a National of civic knowledge are not high... Political Curriculum subject were not understood or, 59 Halpern, John and Morris, January 2004. 60 Stradling (1977) The Political Awareness of the School Leaver.

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 34

in a small number of schools, because they 4.21 Responses to our own consultation were not accepted. exercise largely reflected this picture of •A very wide range of curriculum models has broadly welcoming the principle of citizenship been used for citizenship. In the majority of education, but finding that implementation in cases citizenship has been set mainly within practice had to date been weak in many areas. existing personal, social and health education 4.22 The Commission recognises that there is programmes. Generally, this arrangement is – and has been since the subject got onto the proving unsatisfactory. In only a minority – political agenda in a serious way – ‘a tension one in five schools – is the citizenship between, on the one hand, the new status of curriculum well developed. citizenship as a National Curriculum subject •Pupils’ knowledge, understanding and skills and, on the other, the notion that citizenship is in citizenship are at a very early stage of a “light touch” subject’.64 The lack of prescription development; notwithstanding this, standards in Government guidance and the absence in citizenship are too often unsatisfactory and of any examinations at the end of the GCSE written work in citizenship is generally weaker course led one student to report to us that some than it should be. of her colleagues viewed it as ‘a doss lesson’, but other contributors felt that the lack of an 4.20 Finally, the organisation Community exam enabled students to be more free-thinking Service Volunteers published in September in their approach to lessons and able to explore 2003, Citizenship in the curriculum – one year their ideas and attitudes in more depth without on.62 This survey of teachers’ views at 60 the inhibition of what they felt might normally schools in England found (among other be considered as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. things) that: • in 60% of schools, only the citizenship 4.23 Unfortunately, although our own co-ordinator – or even no-one at all – consultation activities in Wales, Scotland and had received citizenship training; Northern Ireland tend to replicate the responses received in England (i.e. that whatever approach • 95% of teachers said that pupils viewed is being taken to citizenship education in citizenship as really or fairly relevant to real that area of the UK is welcomed in principle, life (it reports that a similar survey conducted but is not yet fulfilling its potential), we have no with 393 young people by Young NCB63 found comparable research evidence to supplement 70% of them thought citizenship was either those responses. We referred above to the very or quite important); and incoming requirement for school councils • 55% thought attitudes to citizenship had improved since it became compulsory in 62 www.csv.org.uk/News/Press+Release+Citizenship+in+the+ September 2002. curriculum.htm 63 Citizenship Questionnaire, www.youngncb.org.uk 61 www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/docs/3312.pdf 64 OFSTED report, June 2003.

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 35

in Wales. Obviously, the effectiveness of would endorse such suggestions as a greater this in bolstering young people’s awareness emphasis on the provision of citizenship training and understanding of democratic structures to non-specialists as well as specialist citizenship and procedures will depend on how it is teachers and the commissioning of further work implemented, but the initiative holds further on how schools can best address the entitlement potential for the development of an improved to active citizenship for all pupils. culture of active citizenship among young people. I think at the moment that lowering the voting 4.24 From available evidence across the UK, age, and that of candidacy, would be unwise it would therefore appear that citizenship until citizenship education has become more education is still very much in its infancy. established, say in 5 to 10 years from now.65 Outside England, it is not currently a specific Overall, the majority of young people curriculum subject in its own right (forming just participating in this debate voted in favour one element of another subject). Even in of keeping the voting age at 18 at present… England, independent assessment of the However, the majority of young people did delivery of the subject in schools has shown agree that it was a good idea in principle to that the quality has been very patchy – and lower the voting age to 16 in the near future. largely weak – in the couple of years since It was suggested that this should be done it was formally introduced, with only a few once citizenship education had become schools identified as examples of success. more established, and some of the issues Accordingly, it does not appear to the raised had been addressed.66 Commission to be sensible to found any recommendation in respect of the minimum 4.26 Without taking a particular view as regards voting and/or candidacy age on the current the debate over the level of prescription that state of citizenship teaching in schools. should be involved in the citizenship curriculum, the Commission also believes that effective 4.25 However, if the delivery of citizenship dissemination and promotion of the good education in its various manifestations across practice in the schools that are implementing the UK were to fulfil the potential envisaged the subject well and stating more clearly the at the time of its introduction, then this may benefits to schools that arise from effective change the context in which the policy on the delivery are key to the future development of minimum age of electoral rights is considered. citizenship teaching in schools. As Deptford The more recent reports on citizenship referred Green School in London stated in response to to above contain a number of pointers as to the CSV survey mentioned above: how the Government and educational bodies involved in the delivery of citizenship education 65 Consultation response from Norman Lee Plumpton (a youth worker), August 2003. might achieve more effective implementation 66 Consultation response from Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, of this area of teaching. The Commission reporting a debate on the issues by young people in the area during Local Democracy Week, October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 36

In a national context where so many schools • The need for ring-fenced time for are tempted to treat citizenship as an initiative coordinators to plan and organise, and too far, the only way to promote this theme for deliverers to develop their understanding is to demonstrate how it can contribute to a of citizenship and to design interesting school’s success. programmes. Lack of real time remains an issue across many of the projects at present. Citizenship post-16 • The importance of opportunities for staff 60% thought [the candidacy age] should be development and training across a wide changed to 18, so that young people can range of topics, themes and approaches. have a chance to make a real difference, but it was also felt that for this to happen • The importance of a need for a reinforcement more education about the political world of the definition of citizenship linked, where possible, to real, practical case studies. would be needed... 20% thought 17.67 • The need for a flexible, yet rigorous, framework 4.27 We have previously noted that citizenship for post-16 citizenship developments. education at ages 16–19 is also being taken forward in England and the Commission 4.29 At this time, the Commission can do little welcomes this initiative. There are, of more than endorse the view that problems and course, particular problems with continuing solutions identified in the implementation of the principles and practice of citizenship secondary citizenship education should help education and developing more active citizens inform the development of the subject at post-16 that arise once young people leave compulsory level and vice versa. As the NFER report puts it: secondary education. It is hoped that the lessons learnt will prove 4.28 Although citizenship education at 16–19 invaluable not only for any planned national is at an early stage of development, research roll-out of post-16 citizenship but also for the is being conducted by the National Foundation development of pre-16 citizenship. In a for Educational Research. In its January 2004 climate of growing discussion about, and report National Evaluation of Post-16 Citizenship planning for, provision not just for 16–19 but increasingly 14–19, it is vital that the Development Projects: Second Annual Report,68 NFER identified some emerging issues that are outcomes of the development phase are similar to the problems encountered at the applied as widely as possible. pre-16 level, such as: 4.30 The Commission also notes in this context the potential implications of the current review being undertaken by the Working Group on 67 Consultation response from Funky Dragon (the Young People’s 14–19 Reform (chaired by Mike Tomlinson and Assembly for Wales), reporting feedback from their Grand Council in October 2003. due to make its final report in Autumn 2004). 68 www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR507.doc

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education 37

We strongly believe that this review should give sufficient recognition to the importance of continuing citizenship education so that encouraging beginnings in Key Stage 3 (age 11–14) can be built on in subsequent years.

Age of electoral majority: citizenship education

39 5 Public opinion

An assessment of the age at The voting age – general public which sufficient social awareness 5.1 In the responses to the consultation paper, and responsibility has developed around two-thirds of those answering the relevant question stated that they wanted to to make it appropriate to grant see a change to the current minimum voting voting rights must, to a large extent, age (Table 2). When asked what their preferred rest on the views of society. Here minimum age would be if the voting age were to be reduced, nearly three-quarters of all we look at what the views of respondents recorded a preference for age the public are on both the voting 16 (Table 3). and candidacy issues. Table 2: Do you want to see a change in the current minimum age for voting (18)? Yes No All individual responses 66% 34% Individual responses 66% 34% from young people All responses (i.e. including 67% 33% survey/petition style responses)

Age of electoral majority: public opinion 40

Table 3: If the voting age were to be reduced, what age do you think it should be reduced to? Under 16 16 17 18 Over 18 All individual responses 1% 61% 2% 35% 1% Individual responses from young people 2% 59% 3% 34% 1% All responses (i.e. including ) 2% 72% 8% 19% * survey/petition style responses * represents a figure of less than 0.5%

5.2 However, responses to an open public 5.3 As an adjunct to the Commission’s consultation are by definition self-selecting consultation exercise, we retained ICM to in nature and it is not unreasonable to suppose conduct a survey among a representative sample that the overall response could be skewed of adults across the UK. ICM conducted 1,033 from being truly representative of general public interviews between 19–20 November 2003 and opinion by a well-organised campaign on a further 234 interviews with 15–19 year-olds.69 one side of the debate (particularly when, as In contrast to the responses to our consultation it appeared in this case, there is no organised paper, the survey found that the average (mean) campaign to encourage responses from the of all the responses to the question of what the other side of the debate). The Commission minimum voting age should be was – strikingly – therefore also looked at the results of direct exactly 18 (Table 4). When subsequently public opinion survey work. prompted with a choice between 16 and 18, the latter is preferred by a margin of more than three-to-one (Table 5).

Table 4: At what age do you think people should be able to vote in elections? Age of respondent 15–19 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ All Average (mean) response 17.4 17.7 17.5 17.8 18.1 18.5 18.4 18.0

Table 5: If the choice came down to it, do you think the minimum voting age should be lowered to 16 years or kept at its present 18 years? Age of respondent 15–19 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ All Lower to 16 35% 33% 38% 27% 19% 11% 5% 22% Keep at 18 54% 67% 62% 73% 80% 88% 94% 78%

69 The full statistical results are reproduced in Appendix C and ICM’s full report with analysis is available at: www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/researchpub.cfm

Age of electoral majority: public opinion 41

5.4 We were also aware of a survey conducted 5.7 A further relevant survey was that run by in Wales in March 2003 for HTV Wales by NOP.70 MORI with 11–18 year-olds on behalf of The overall response to the question of whether Nestlé’s Family Monitor research series.71 In this or not the minimum voting age should be survey, a slight majority wished to see a lowered to 16 was very similar to the findings minimum voting age of 16 or lower, while a of our own ICM survey (Table 6). sizeable minority wished to see the minimum age retained at 18, or even raised (Table 7). Table 6: Should the age for first time voters More detailed analysis of the responses again be reduced from the current 18 to 16? reveals that – as with the ICM survey – there is Age of Yes No Don’t a correlation between a younger respondent Respondent know and a greater desire to lower the voting age. 18–24 31% 66% 3% Table 7: People are able to vote in a general 25–34 32% 68% * election in Britain at 18 years of age. At what 35–54 25% 73% 2% age do you think people should be able to 55+ 12% 88% * vote in a general election? All 25% 73% 1% Under 16 17 18 Over Don’t * represents a figure of less than 0.5% 16 18 know 23% 30% 7% 25% 8% 6% The voting age – young people 5.5 It is worth looking particularly at the 5.8 The overall picture across these tests responses of young people themselves. of opinion among young people – of no It might be supposed that those who are consistently clear majority of young people currently without a right would be strongly supporting a lowering of the voting age – in favour of being granted it. In fact, the was mirrored in the debates and discussions consultation responses indicate that the attended by representatives of the Commission views of young respondents are very much in during our consultation exercise. On the voting line with those of older respondents (Table 2). age, strongly-held opinions were expressed on both sides of the argument, and where votes 5.6 In the ICM survey, there does appear to be a were held the majority either way was often correlation between a younger respondent and narrow. It is our conclusion after this extensive an increased desire to lower the voting age (Table canvas of opinion that the overall view of 16–17 4). However, the majority of young people in our year-olds themselves on this issue is ambivalent. survey still supported retention of a minimum age of 18 rather than lowering to 16 (Table 5). 71 Nestlé Family Monitor No. 16, July 2003, Young people’s attitudes towards politics. Based on self-completion surveys returned by 914 young people aged 11–18. The survey was conducted across 238 70 HTV Wales/NOP survey of 1,500 people aged 18+ across Wales, schools and colleges in England and Wales between March and fieldwork dates 25–30 March 2003. May 2003.

Age of electoral majority: public opinion 42

Table 8: Why do you think the voting age should be kept at 18? Age of Not enough Not mature Too young to Still Not Leaves time respondent life experience enough make decisions children interested to develop at 16 at 16 at 16 at 16 at 16 views views at 16 15–19 36% 22% 12% 3% 13% 3% 18+ 33% 30% 13% 9% 4% 2%

Table 9: Do you want to see a change in the 5.9 We refer elsewhere in this report to various current minimum age for standing as a comments from young people on why they do candidate (21)? not feel it would be appropriate to give them the right to vote at the current time. Table 8 Yes No reinforces that picture. All individual responses 64% 36% Individual responses 55% 45% from young people All responses 45% 55% (i.e. including survey/ petition style responses)

Table 10: If the minimum age for standing as a candidate at UK elections were to be reduced, what age do you think it should be reduced to? Under 16 16 18 21 Over 21 All individual responses * 15% 47% 35% 2% Individual responses from young people * 9% 38% 48% 4% All responses (i.e. including survey/ 1% 33% 56% 10% 1% petition style responses) * represents a figure of less than 0.5%

Age of electoral majority: public opinion 43

Table 11: At what age do you think people should be able to stand as a candidate in an election? Age of respondent 15–19 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ All Average 19.2 19.8 19.6 20.2 20.5 20.1 21.1 20.4 (mean) response

Table 12: For each of the following statements, do you: agree strongly, tend to agree, neither agree nor disagree, tend to disagree, or strongly disagree? You need more If you’re old enough maturity to stand as a to vote, you’re old enough candidate than to vote to be a candidate Agree strongly 58% 18% Tend to agree 23% 20% Neither agree nor disagree 3% 4% Tend to disagree 9% 30% Strongly disagree 6% 27%

The candidacy age 5.12 It is interesting to note that the level of 5.10 The responses to our consultation ‘net disagreement’ in respect of the second paper gave a mixed view. There was a slight statement in Table 12 (‘if you’re old enough to majority of individual respondents in favour vote, you’re old enough to be a candidate’) only of a lower candidacy age, but this was reaches about 58%. According to ICM, ‘given reversed when organised petition or survey- that 81% previously felt that candidates needed style responses were added in (Table 9). to be older, it clearly did not take much for In respect of the preferred minimum age if almost one in four to change their mind, or it were to be lowered, 18 was generally the at least to be sympathetic with both sides of favoured option (Table 10). the argument’.

5.11 However, our ICM public opinion survey 5.13 Again, this attitude was mirrored in the indicates both an average preferred minimum debates we observed as part of our consultation candidacy age of 20 (Table 11) and opposition to process where, for young people and adults the suggestion that the candidacy age should alike, although the majority opinion was to be the same as the voting age (Table 12). keep the current age of 21, opinions were not so vigorously held and were more open to being changed.

Age of electoral majority: public opinion

45 6 Election turnout and wider participation

All the evidence points to a declining How important is turnout in rate of participation by younger this context? people in the formal processes 6.1 The Electoral Commission’s interest in the of politics. It is estimated that fewer issue of the age of electoral majority stems in part from our concern about declining than four in 10 of those aged 18–24 participation rates in UK elections, especially at the last general election used among young people. We have therefore paid their entitlement to vote. close attention throughout this review to the potential effects on turnout were the voting and/or candidacy age to be lowered.

6.2 However, in taking this approach, we have been clear that the impact of any change on levels of electoral participation would be likely to be both long-term and indirect. We also recognise that while issues of turnout are of particular interest to us, most of those with views on the issue feel that the minimum ages for electoral participation should be determined on wider principles. As stated previously, analysing the level of take-up of any particular legal right can help to set the context, but it should not be the sole factor in determining whether or not the right should be granted to a particular group of people.

In the debate about reducing the voting age, it is important we do not get sucked into debates around voter turnout and apathy. Whether or not young people choose to exercise their vote is not the issue. The issue is that young people have the right to have a say in all decisions that affect them.72

72 Consultation response from Deptford Green School, Lewisham, October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: election turnout and wider participation 46

6.3 Of more fundamental importance, therefore, among the young. In the same surveys, is the question of what may be the long-term younger voters were much more likely than effects of any change in the minimum voting other age groups to give ‘I wanted to have a and/or candidacy age on the relationship say’ as a reason for voting. between young people and the democratic process as a whole. 6.6 Additionally, an ICM survey for the Commission in Scotland in May 2003 found The effect on turnout 23% of the public and 40% of 18–24 year-olds of 6.4 We set out in our consultation paper a the view that ‘people should only vote if they care who wins’ (rather than voting being ‘a duty’ broad review of some of the key research into 74 voter participation, which indicates that young or ‘not really worth it’). Indeed, responses by people in Britain in the first decade of the younger non-voters in the MORI/Hansard Society/Commission qualitative research in twenty-first century are more cynical and less 75 supportive of the formal political process 2001 suggest that they are keen to vote in an than young people in the 1990s and earlier informed way for positive reasons and that not generations. Research also identifies a voting at all is preferable to voting ‘in ignorance’. correlation between age and propensity to 6.7 Those pressing for a lowering of the vote, in that the older an individual is the more minimum voting age put their case essentially likely they are to exercise their right to vote, 73 on the basis of the ‘catch them young’ principle, particularly at ‘second order’ elections. often combining this with the perceived benefits This is not unique to the UK. of the introduction of citizenship education (see 6.5 The decision to vote – or to abstain – can earlier chapter). be the result of numerous factors: resources, Those who vote young, vote often and so motivation, mobilisation (i.e. frequently lowering the voting age to 16, while it cannot changing address) and context all play a role. erase the lottery of birthdays, will ensure that MORI’s surveys for the Commission at the 2001 everyone can participate in a general election general election found 18–24 year-olds far less by the time they turn 21.76 likely to see voting as a ‘duty’ than older age 6.8 However, those in favour of retaining the groups. It follows that whether or not voting is current minimum voting age prefer to argue perceived to make ‘much of a difference’ is on the basis of the current correlation between less salient for older age groups than it is turnout and age mentioned above:

73 Reif and Schmitt distinguish between ‘first order’ and ‘second-order’ elections. The most important distinction between the two is that 74 ICM survey for The Electoral Commission, 1,100 adults in Scotland parties and the public consider there to be ‘less at stake’ in the case aged 18+, 2–5 May 2003. of ‘second order’ elections. See K. Reif and H. Schmitt (1980) ‘Nine National Second-Order Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the 75 December 2001, None of the above: non-voters and the 2001 election. Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political 76 Votes at 16 campaign official ‘Issues Briefing’ Research 8: 3–44. (www.votesat16.org.uk/resources.php).

Age of electoral majority: election turnout and wider participation 47

All agree that turnout among electors aged in time for the 1970 general election78 reported 18-24 is significantly worse than among voting in that election, whereas 77.2% of those older people; the solution proposed is to in the age group 21–25 (i.e. those who would include in the electorate a group whose have formed the conventional first time intake turnout is likely to be even lower. By any in previous elections), and 82.7% of those aged standard this is bizarre reasoning. If anything over 25 reported voting. It is also instructive to is certain about what would happen to note that the newly eligible voters of 1970 were turnout if the voting age were lowered it is apparently less ‘interested’ in the electoral that in the next election turnout would be campaign than older counterparts.79 While a little lower than it would otherwise have been.77 dated, this precedent nevertheless appears 6.9 As regards the short-term effect on turnout, to throw some doubt on the claims that those if the voting age were lowered it is certainly just below the current voting age are more conceivable that there might be a slightly higher interested in the world of politics and would be rate of participation by newly enfranchised 16 more likely to vote than their immediate elders. and 17 year-olds than by the youngest age 6.11 It therefore seems to us, on the limited group of the current electorate. We saw in our evidence currently available, most likely that chapter on international comparators that the overall turnout would decline in the short-term very limited amount of evidence from Lower as a result of lowering the voting age. Saxony shows that this was indeed what happened there in the mid 1990s. 6.12 As regards the medium and long-term effect on turnout, the arguments of theory 6.10 However, if the figures were put in the are reasonably compelling, and there is some UK context, the difference would be sufficiently research to suggest that a habit of voting small that it is likely that the overall turnout developed at an earlier age will be maintained rate would nevertheless be lowered in light into later life. According to Mark Franklin, ‘the of the additional numbers of eligible voters. transition between [the] unengaged and Furthermore, the last experience of widening established [voter] appears to happen during the franchise certainly did little to improve the first three elections that people are exposed turnout. Analysis of the 1970 British Election Study reveals that those aged 18–21 were significantly less likely to vote than all other eligible voters. Only 64.7% of those young 78 For a fascinating flashback to the attitudes of newly enfranchised people to whom the franchise was extended 18-20 year-olds on the 1970 election and the lowering of the voting age to 18, see the BBC News website at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/in_depth/election_ battles/1970qt_youth_vote.stm 79 The 1970 BES asked respondents to state their level of interest in the election campaign. 40.2% of those aged over 25 claimed to be have 77 Consultation response from David Denver, Professor of Politics at a ‘good deal’ of interest, compared to 29% of those aged between Lancaster University. 21 and 25, and 22.6% of those eligible to vote but below the age of 21.

Age of electoral majority: election turnout and wider participation 48

to as voting-age adults’ and there is ‘relative access to ‘civics’ education and important immobility in terms of turnout after the third existing social networks means that it has election’.80 He also suggests that: had an adverse effect on turnout, as it …any other age from 15 to 25 [except 18] ‘exposed young citizens to the experience would be a better age for individuals to be of voting who were not yet in a position to confronted with the need to acquire the skills benefit from the opportunity’: and knowledge necessary for casting a vote; extensions of the franchise to 18 year-olds in and since it would be difficult or impossible most countries during the late twentieth to now re-establish an older voting age, the century has cost a bit less than 3 per cent most promising reform that might restore in turnout so far, and will cost at least 4 per turnout would be to lower the voting age cent in turnout by the time all prior cohorts further, to 15. have left the electorates of these countries…

6.13 However, while a habit of voting might be 6.15 Ultimately, arguments about the voting easier to develop and ingrain in younger people, age and turnout in the UK are largely based on it is also reasonable to suppose that a habit of speculation and hypothesis, with strong views – non-voting might also be ingrained more easily but little conclusive evidence – on either side at an early age. It may also be reasonably as to whether or not the longer-term effect supposed that the initial thrill of being given of lowering the voting age on turnout would voting rights would soon wear off among the be positive. newly enfranchised age group: 6.16 Similarly, we have seen nothing to suggest After the novelty had worn off, young people that large numbers of younger candidates would take it for granted and not go, like the would put themselves forward for election people in the 18–24 age category do now. 81 if the minimum candidacy age were lowered. What’s the point? As we identified earlier in this report, even 6.14 Furthermore, some academics working with the minimum candidacy age at 21, in the field dispute whether the habit of voting there are extremely small numbers of elected is developed at an earlier age.82 Not least, representatives below the age of 30. Franklin himself points out that changing 6.17 What seems to us to be an argument with the voting age without tying it into better greater merit is that if the minimum candidacy

80 Mark N. Franklin (2004) Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral age were lowered, even a small number of competition in established democracies since 1945. Cambridge younger candidates coming forward and being University Press (due for publication in spring 2004). elected would help bring down the average age 81 Response by ‘amanleip’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. of elected representatives and help improve the 82 A particularly detailed critique of the ‘birthday lottery’ argument put ability of elected bodies to more closely reflect in forward by those supporting a voting age of 16 was supplied to us by demographic terms the communities they serve. Philip Cowley of the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham.

Age of electoral majority: election turnout and wider participation 49

6.18 A number of respondents to our 6.19 It is impossible to say without further long- consultation felt that this might be a small term research whether the disengagement of step in the right direction of restoring some the electorate that we have seen in recent UK86 element of belief among the young that elections is part of a longer-term pattern of political institutions were there to represent declining participation or simply a ‘blip’. However, them as well as older people. For example, what we can do is try to understand the issues following a debate among 16–18 year-olds behind falling levels of engagement, and identify held by Stroud District Council, 58% felt that what can be done to reverse the decline. lowering the ages of electoral participation would (43%) or could (15%) increase the levels 6.20 Of course, turnout is merely a health- of trust between politicians and young people check for democracy. Poor rates of electoral (28% thought it would not and 14% didn’t turnout – the focus of much attention in the know). Similarly, following a debate at the media – are a symptom rather than a cause Grand Council of Funky Dragon (the Young of society losing interest in the structures of People’s Assembly for Wales) 70% thought it representative democracy. Accordingly, would have some impact or change things to attention should be focused on improving some extent (61%) or would definitely change the relationship between electors and elected the levels of trust (9%), while 30% felt that it rather than simply on increasing the proportions would not change things. of people who vote in elections. Participation beyond elections 6.21 Non-voting can be the result of disillusion with politics or the political parties, inconvenience or We don’t think the voting age should be alienation, characteristics which all seem to lowered. It seems like a ploy to try and win be present in disproportionate quantities in the more voters, not a genuine concern.83 youngest sections of the electorate. Prevailing If we fail to nurture young people’s interest current opinion seems to indicate that many young in politics, then we lose it.84 people are not apathetic as such, often being interested in and perhaps actively involved with A reduction in the voting age would be a specific political issues. It may not be age itself direct, clear and unambiguous signal that that makes younger people non-participators, but politicians are prepared to engage sensibly rather other social factors: 45% of reported non- with young people at their level and consider voters in 2001 claimed to have failed to cast a vote the issues which they are interested in, and not because of circumstances beyond their control 85 simply talk about them rather than to them. rather than through deliberate abstention.87 86 NB: Northern Ireland tends to buck the trend across the rest of the 83 Response by ‘victspar’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary UK, General election turnouts being consistently maintained at school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. around 80% in most constituencies there. 84 Response by ‘heleranc’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary 87 ‘The Growing Problem of Electoral Turnout in Britain? Voluntary and school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. Involuntary Non-Voters in 2001’, Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie, 85 Consultation response from Ross Johnson, July 2003. Representation, Vol. 40, Number 1, pp. 30–43.

Age of electoral majority: election turnout and wider participation 50

6.22 Our consultation paper referred to the for those young people under the age of 18 University of Sheffield’s ‘Citizen Audit’ research, who were not entitled to vote.90 which found that ‘the British public is politically 6.24 More recent qualitative research with engaged, if politics is viewed as extending young people aged 16–25 gives us further beyond Westminster’ and that young people clues to what young people feel about this: (18–25) are no less engaged in particular repertoires of civic activities than older people.88 Typically, our respondents stated that they The Nestlé Family Monitor/MORI survey of were unlikely to vote in local, national, or 11–18 year-olds in England and Wales also European elections, but conversely several found that ‘low political engagement is not felt that the voting age was set too high. caused by “apathy”. The vast majority take part The lack of a vote at 16 or 17 was viewed as in some form of community activity...’.89 Rather, confirmation of the lack of regard that adults young people seem alienated from the existing and politicians have for young people, while political structures, including elections, for a the ability to vote at 18 did not confer any number of reasons, including a perceived sense of political empowerment or efficacy.91 failure of politicians to listen to and act upon 6.25 There is also a strong feeling that young peoples’ concerns. changing the minimum ages for electoral participation is just one small part of a 6.23 We stated in our introduction that part of much wider problem of how the ‘political our motivation for conducting this review was a establishment’ engages with young people. specific request from young people themselves to ‘seriously consider’ whether the minimum Too often, concern about youth political voting age should be lowered, in the context disengagement is focused on an impending particularly of how that might help the wider re- future crisis of political participation and on engagement of young people with the political the failure to induct young people effectively process. Part of the reason for this view might into ‘adult politics’, rather than on the failure be detected in qualitative research conducted to engage with young people and with the by the National Centre for Social Research: issues that affect and concern them.92 Some young people did not think there was 6.26 Many reports in recent years – a number anything they could do to get involved [with of which The Electoral Commission has been local government]. This was a particular issue involved with since its establishment in 2000 – have explored the problems of the increasing

88 ‘Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain’, Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, Political Studies, Vol. 51, Number 3, 90 Youth Participation in Local Government: A Qualitative Study, Office October 2003, pp. 443–468. of the Deputy Prime Minister/NCSR, October 2002. 89 Nestlé Family Monitor (2003) Young people’s attitudes towards 91 ‘Political Literacy Cuts Both Ways: The Politics of Non-participation politics. MORI conducted classroom based self-completion sessions among Young People’, O’Toole, Marsh and Jones, The Political with 914 young people aged 11–18 in 33 schools and colleges Quarterly, Vol. 74, Issue 3, July 2003. across England and Wales between March and May 2003. 92 Ibid.

Age of electoral majority: election turnout and wider participation 51

levels of non-participation by young people with the formal structures of democratic government and proposed specific methods by which politicians and others can at least begin to engage with young people in a more meaningful way. We do not attempt to set out a comprehensive list here, but some of the key publications in the field during the course of the last couple of years include: • Young people and politics: a report of the YVote?/YNot? project, July 2002, Children and Young People’s Unit. • Youth Participation in Local Government: A Qualitative Study, October 2002, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/National Centre for Social Research. • Standard – organisational standards and Young People’s Participation in Public Decision Making, 2003, Carnegie Young People Initiative. • Hear by Right – standards for the active involvement of children and young people, October 2003 (revised edition), National Youth Agency/Local Government Association. • A young person’s agenda for democracy – one year on, October 2003, Youth Voting Network.

Age of electoral majority: election turnout and wider participation

53 7 All or nothing?

In this chapter we examine what Managing change would be involved in any change to 7.1 Unlike many aspects of electoral law candidacy or voting age, and some previously considered by the Commission, the process of changing the age of majority of the possible alternatives to either from the currently stipulated minimum to ‘no change’ or a ‘one size fits another – whether for voting or candidacy – all’ approach. does not present significant or complex legal issues. We have also considered whether there would be any technical complications for the administration of elections were there to be changes to the minimum voting or candidacy ages. The Association of Electoral Administrators raised no points of concern in this regard and the Electoral Matters Panel of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives stated that: Technically, there would be no real problems for electoral registration officers, as the names of such attainers [i.e. people aged one or two years younger than minimum voting age] already appear on the register; we would have to make one or two changes and probably have 15-year-olds as attainers, but this does not seem an insurmountable difficulty. 7.2 In financial terms, initial analysis suggests that there would be no direct financial implications of a change to the candidacy age. On the other hand, a change to voting age would be likely to require a marginal increase in the running costs of the registration process currently borne by local authorities (to reflect the larger number of eligible electors) and there would be some initial implementation costs to address the changes to registration software and fund a public awareness campaign to inform those newly able to register of their rights.

Age of electoral majority: all or nothing? 54

7.3 These assessments of the legal, technical candidacy age might. Some also argue that and financial implications assume, however, lower ages for some elections could be that any change would be made in one move, counterbalanced by raising the minimum and the new legal framework would retain the age for others. principle of a single age of majority for voting at all UK elections and a single age of majority 7.7 Some respondents to our consultation for standing as a candidate at all UK elections exercise were opposed to wholesale change, (it would not make any significant difference while supporting a lowering of the minimum whether the two ages were different or the same). age in a more limited way: this seemed to be an idea that particularly – although not uniquely – 7.4 Below, we examine the potential implications appealed to young people.93 of introducing a new legal framework which allowed for greater flexibility. I think people should get involved in politics at a young age. Therefore they should vote Variable ages? in local elections earlier than national, as it 94 7.5 Among the questions in our consultation affects their life all the time. paper we asked whether the minimum age for I think the minimum voting age for the general voting and candidacy should be the same for all election should remain at 18… However, levels of public election in the UK, or might vary I think the minimum voting age for local according to the particular type of election. As elections should be lowered to 16 as these we mentioned in our consultation paper and in elections have a more rapid and direct affect the chapter of this report looking at international on the local areas in which we all live. Young comparators, some other countries use variable people should be given the right to vote on ages, for example some Bundesländer in how the place in which they live is run, but Germany use a lower voting age for municipal not on the running of the entire country.95 elections than for state or federal elections, I think that 16 year-olds should be allowed while in relation to candidacy, countries such to take part in local elections but not general as Ireland, France, Italy and the USA have a elections. We should have the right to vote relatively low minimum candidacy age for local on matters which will definitely affect us elections, a higher minimum for election to the within our home area but I don’t think that national/federal legislature and often a higher still minimum age for election as President. 93 For example, Stroud District Youth Council held a debate with local young people on the issues on 15 October 2003 (during Local Democracy Week). Although views were very evenly split over 7.6 The introduction of variable ages of majority whether or not the voting age should be lowered for all elections, there was significant majority support for the proposal that the voting for different elections has some initial attractions. age could be lowered just for local elections. Supporters of a variable age approach argue 94 Consultation response from student at Lodge Park Technology that it would not attract the criticism that an College, Corby. ‘across the board’ change to the voting or 95 Consultation response from student at Lodge Park Technology College, Corby.

Age of electoral majority: all or nothing? 55

enough 16 year-olds would have the • it helps to keep an already confusing myriad of knowledge and sense to use their vote age-related rights as simple as possible; and 96 wisely in a general election. • variable ages would be demeaning both to I think the [voting] age should be raised the levels of government and to the younger to 20... I would contemplate reducing local people to which the lower voting and/or authority voting to 17 on grounds that candidacy ages would apply, as it could youngsters might influence local authorities imply that those tiers of government and to consider their needs seriously instead of people were less important than others. treating teenagers like irresponsible children to be humoured but ignored.97 7.10 On the basis of the latter arguments and the overwhelming view expressed in response 7.8 These responses generally tend to propose to our specific consultation question about that a lower voting or candidacy age could different ages for different elections, we do not be introduced for local elections rather than currently propose to recommend this approach. national, UK or European elections, largely on the basis that local government is the level Pilot schemes of democratic government that young people are 7.11 The Representation of the People Act 2000 most directly affected by, even if they do not provided the opportunity for local authorities to realise it – and young people may therefore test new voting procedures at local elections on have a stronger argument for influencing this a pilot basis. Over 100 different pilot schemes level of government. For example, young have been run to date, testing innovations such people are big users of local leisure facilities, as all-postal voting, electronic voting, electronic local public transport, local licensed premises counting and free delivery of information about and a range of other services where the local election candidates. The pilots programme delivery of the service is controlled by local has been designed to provide evidence to inform councils rather than central government. decisions about whether to make permanent and universal changes to electoral law. Central 7.9 Set against this, by far the majority of to the programme is the role of The Electoral consultation respondents were in favour of Commission in evaluating each pilot scheme. retaining the current standardised approach to minimum ages of electoral participation 7.12 Many local authorities have been enthused regardless of the type of election. Their by the opportunities that the pilots programme argument is that the current consistent has provided, and at least one is keen to see approach is important because: the programme extended to cover the issues addressed in this report. The London Borough of Camden responded to our consultation 96 Response by ‘Lgraham’ to the HeadsUp online forum for secondary school pupils on the voting and candidacy age, 1–17 October 2003. expressing their support for a lowering of 97 Consultation response from Malcolm Swallow, 5 November 2003.

Age of electoral majority: all or nothing? 56

the minimum voting age to 16. Their response Council’s officers are at present considering then stated: the best way in which to take [this] forward. Camden is also keen to pilot arrangements 7.15 The Commission has also identified further for votes at 16 at the May 2006 local elections technical issues and a key point of principle if at all possible.98 that would need to be considered seriously 7.13 The Commission agrees that the concept before a pilot could take place. The technical of piloting changes to the age of electoral issues are that: majority has some attractions. Foremost among • The current legislation that provides for local these is that pilot schemes would provide a solid, election pilot schemes99 does not allow for home-grown evidence base on which to make piloting of different minimum ages for voting decisions about changes to the law in this area – and/or candidacy. New or amending primary assessing the actual effect of lowering the voting legislation would need to be introduced, age and/or candidacy age on turnout and the debated and passed by Parliament before wider engagement of young people in politics. any substantive work on holding a pilot could If such pilot schemes followed the current model, take place. they would be capable of extension to all local • In the context of a pilot using a minimum voting elections without further legislation if proved to age of 16, adjustments would need to be made be successful. The evidence gathered could to the electoral register well in advance of the also inform a further review of the age of election to which the pilot scheme related, in majority for other elections, avoiding the order to ensure that everyone who should be difficulties experienced by the current review entitled to vote under the pilot arrangements faced with an apparent total absence of recent can be entered on the register. As indicated hard evidence from this country and only a small above, many 16 and 17 year-olds may be on amount of data from part of Germany. the register already (in the status of attainers), 7.14 However, there are some serious issues but others will not. A lower minimum voting that would need to be set against this potential age might also require a lower age of attainer benefit. Camden itself stated: to be added to the register as well – to replicate the implications of the change if It is acknowledged that a number of issues made on a permanent basis. Accordingly, would need to be taken into account in these changes would need to be in place in preparing a possible pilot scheme. One such time for the previous year’s statutory annual issue which has been raised is the impact in electoral registration canvass exercise. All Camden schools on pupils who do not live in of this adds to the significant lead time that the Camden area. This and other practical would be required, in our view, for an issues will be considered in detail. And the appropriately robust pilot to be conducted.

99 Pilot schemes are provided for in section 10 of the Representation of 98 Response dated 30 October 2003. the People Act 2000 (c.2).

Age of electoral majority: all or nothing? 57

7.16 These issues are not insurmountable, and 7.19 In both cases, the evaluation criteria they are primarily factors that would influence would also be difficult to set, as it would not the length of time it might take before a pilot necessarily be a mark of ‘failure’ if no candidate could actually be run. under 21 were to stand or be elected, yet without such a candidate there would be little 7.17 However, there are also more complex to evaluate. Similarly, if the target of a reduced considerations. Probably of greatest voting age is to encourage greater engagement significance in assessing the case for pilots is in the democratic process over the long-term, the constitutional nature of the right to vote or short-term turnout measures are unlikely to stand as a candidate. A constitutional right is provide a satisfactory basis for evaluation. extremely valuable and decisions to grant it or take it away must be taken only after careful 7.20 Altogether, while the Commission consideration. While such a right could be recognises the clear benefits that could arise easily granted – for example as part of an from pilot schemes in terms of informing any electoral pilot scheme – taking it away again future decisions about the age of electoral could be much harder in terms of the reaction majority, on balance it does not believe that of those most directly affected, particularly minimum voting and candidacy ages are where the pilot has been successful and raised appropriate issues on which electoral pilots expectation. While it may be argued that the could be conducted. pilot context would mean that it would actually be a privilege rather than a right that is being ‘Voluntary’ individual registration of granted (and accordingly that recipients should younger people? be aware that it will be time-limited), we believe 7.21 Strictly, registration itself is not compulsory in this is a distinction that would not be the UK, but it is compulsory to supply information appreciated by the general public. to an electoral registration officer if it is requested (e.g. complete and return a registration form if 7.18 Furthermore, specifically in relation to any you receive one). One consultation response100 pilot scheme of a lower candidacy age, if a stated that: candidate below the current minimum age were to be elected, the pilot scheme (and the A solution [to how lowering the voting age evaluation of it) would have to run for several might encourage turnout] would be to allow years in order to encompass that individual’s voluntary registration of 16/17 year-olds. This term of office. Similar problems of popular should not though be a requirement through expectation of extension of the right would arise the current annual registration process for if the candidate proved successful in office, the householder to provide information. which would only be compounded by the length of the pilot. 100 Association of Electoral Administrators (UK-wide response), October 2003.

Age of electoral majority: all or nothing? 58

7.22 With regard to the question of election turnout, there is some logic in this approach. The Commission recognises that only allowing younger voters to vote if they had taken the trouble to get themselves on the electoral register some time beforehand should mean that only those who are more interested in the democratic process will register and, having taken the trouble to do so, will subsequently vote in relatively high proportions. The percentage of this group who do subsequently vote could well be sufficiently high to raise overall turnout at an election.

7.23 Given that it is predicated on the assumption that only those younger people more interested in voting will end up exercising the right to vote (and it therefore screens out those who are less interested), this approach also partly addresses some of the concerns of those who support the status quo that a blanket lowering of the minimum age would allow many young people to vote who might do so without having given the issues or the responsibility involved much thought.

7.24 However, as we have stated above, our view is that the question of the minimum age at which the right to vote should accrue goes well beyond questions of the effect on turnout, and our ultimate recommendation must rest upon whether or not it is right – taking all factors into account – to allow people of a particular age to vote. While clearly addressing the issue of election turnout, the suggestion of a system of voluntary individual registration for younger people does not, in our view, address the wider issues and we therefore do not feel able to recommend it.

Age of electoral majority: all or nothing? 59 8 Conclusions and recommendations

We have looked in preceding Rationale chapters at various topics of 8.1 Our starting point is the international context. relevance to the level at which We have explained that a clear majority of countries have a minimum voting age of 18 and the minimum voting and candidacy that this defines to a certain extent on which side ages should be set in the UK. of the debate the greater onus to ‘make the case’ This chapter presents our final lies. We are clear, however, that a well-argued case, based on evidence of the particular recommendations. circumstances pertaining in the UK, can justify a departure from what may be the norm elsewhere.

8.2 Examination of the minimum ages for other social and civic activities also has some relevance, helping to establish in broad terms the level at which society believes an appropriate level of social responsibility has been developed among its young people. A detailed review of the general age of majority would be welcome, but is beyond the remit or expertise of the Commission.

8.3 It is notable that the current range of legal rights affecting young people in the UK gives no clear guidance as to the point at which society considers that a young person becomes an adult. Although many important legal rights and responsibilities come into play at 16 (and some at a younger age), many others do not do so until 18 (and some at an older age).

8.4 Ultimately, the existence of rights and responsibilities at one particular age does not necessarily demonstrate that other rights and responsibilities should also accrue at that age. Accordingly, while looking at other age-based rights can help to set the context, the age at which electoral rights are assigned should be

Age of electoral majority: conclusions and recommendations 60

assessed in their own specific context, rather may be counter-productive and even encourage than by direct correlation with other legal rights disaffection from the democratic process. and responsibilities. 8.8 However, this argument is predicated 8.5 One important issue on which the question on citizenship education being universal and of the legal minimum age for voting and effective in the first place. From available candidacy should be determined is maturity. evidence across the UK, it would appear However, there are various ways of defining instead that citizenship education is still maturity, and we should be clear what it very much in its infancy. As we noted in our means in relation to electoral participation and consultation paper, it is not currently a specific minimum voting and candidacy ages. The most curriculum subject outside of England (forming crucial factor seems to be the development of just one element of another subject). Even in sufficient social awareness and responsibility. England, independent assessment of the delivery of the subject in schools has shown 8.6 There is research evidence to suggest that that the quality has been very patchy in the genuine social awareness starts to develop short period since it was formally introduced. from the early teens. Our own research report Voter engagement and young people revealed 8.9 With regard to the issue of the effect a that the primary reason for not voting among lower voting and/or candidacy age will have the youngest group of the current electorate on turnout, this has not been the primary was that they did not feel sufficiently informed consideration of our review. On the little hard and they felt it was better not to vote at all than evidence available, it would appear that overall in an ill-informed way, which seems to us a turnout would almost certainly drop in the short- highly responsible attitude that recognises that term as a result of lowering the voting age and voting rights are not to be taken lightly. the longer-term effects on turnout are disputed.

8.7 The recent introduction of citizenship 8.10 Similarly, there is little to suggest that education in schools – in both compulsory large numbers of younger candidates would and voluntary forms – has been claimed by put themselves forward or that turnout (even those seeking to lower the minimum ages as among the young) would increase significantly something that will effectively address the lack as a result of having younger candidates. of political literacy among young people and However, even a small number of younger thereby strengthen their case. There is some candidates coming forward and being elected logic in the argument that enforcing a gap would help to bring down the average age of of two or more years between the end of elected representatives and go a small way compulsory citizenship education (at least in towards improving the demographics of our England) and the right to exercise some of the elected representatives. A number of most fundamental citizen’s rights in a democracy respondents to our consultation felt that

Age of electoral majority: conclusions and recommendations 61

might be a step in the right direction of and others in the same Appendix indicate that restoring some element of belief among the general public opinion is in favour of retaining young that political institutions were there to the current minimum age. Even among young represent them as well as older people. people themselves, our experience has been that there has been no significant or even 8.11 We stated at the start of this report the consistent majority of young people calling for importance to us of encouraging broader the right to vote and indeed many felt that they democratic participation among young people were not ready for the responsibility any in particular. Of the responses to the question earlier than 18. in our consultation paper about lower minimum ages and building trust between young people 8.14 Of course, the quality of the arguments and politicians, the majority view was that presented also needs to be weighed in the lowering the minimum age would go some balance with the numerical results of consultation way towards persuading younger people that and opinion polling. However, on the basis of the politicians were treating their views more evidence currently available, there does not seem seriously than they might otherwise do. to exist a sufficiently strong argument that change now would affect the level of political 8.12 However, a lowering of the voting and/or engagement between young people and the candidacy age was unlikely to have as political process. significant an effect as the much more fundamental cultural shift required in how 8.15 Although the Commission has met large young people are engaged in the wider political numbers of mature and politically literate 16 process. Examples of how such a cultural shift and 17 year-olds in the course of this review might be achieved are set out in the report (and beyond), who would seemingly exercise of the Children and Young People’s Unit the right to vote in a responsible manner, these ‘YVote? / YNot?’ project (Young people and have been almost by definition self-selecting politics, July 2002), and the follow-up report representatives of this age group. Given that from the Youth Voting Network (A young the voting age – as with many other rights – person’s agenda for democracy – one year has to be established by prescribing a rather on, October 2003). arbitrary minimum age in law, the Commission has looked for clear evidence on which to base Voting age any change in the current voting age, and 8.13 As is evident from the statistical to date has found insufficient justification for breakdown at Appendix C, most of those such change. responding directly to our consultation favoured a reduction of the minimum voting age to 16. However, the results of wider recent public survey work by both the Commission

Age of electoral majority: conclusions and recommendations 62

8.16 The Electoral Commission therefore Candidacy age recommends that the minimum age for all 8.21 Although the picture is mixed in the levels of voting in public elections in the UK responses to our consultation paper, general should remain at 18 years for the time being. public opinion as revealed in the results of our survey work appears to be opposed to lowering 8.17 However, the question of the minimum the minimum candidacy age to any significant voting age should be formally reviewed on a degree (if at all). However, it seems public periodic basis, as it is entirely possible that future opinion is less firmly held on the issue of the circumstances may change sufficiently to make a candidacy age than the voting age, and much change to the voting age an appropriate step. more likely to change if a reasoned argument 8.18 There are two factors in particular that may is made. There appear to be sufficiently strong change the social context to a sufficient degree to arguments to justify such a change. make a lower voting age appropriate in the future. 8.22 We have seen that the most common The first is the longer-term development of approach worldwide is to have a single age citizenship teaching across the UK, mainly in that is the minimum for both voting and respect of improving social awareness and candidacy rights. As we stated in our chapter responsibility among the young. The second on international comparators, in our view this (quite possibly influenced by the first) is any supports the proposition that there should be change in society’s attitude to the general age of no differential in the UK between the two majority, preferably expressed through the minimum ages. medium of an independent review encompassing wide public debate. 8.23 The argument for retaining a differential rests on the belief that a person needs to have 8.19 The Commission proposes to undertake more experience of life to be a candidate than further detailed research on the social and to be a voter. However, it is certainly not political awareness of those at – and a few inconceivable, in our view, that there may be years either side of – the current minimum some people younger than 21 who would be voting age, which should provide more both interested in being, and able to act evidence on this crucial area of the debate. effectively as, an elected representative. 8.20 The Electoral Commission would expect to 8.24 The Commission notes that – especially undertake a further formal review of the minimum when contrasted with the blanket age bar in voting age within five to seven years of this legislation – the election process itself already report. We would encourage the Government provides a far more subtle and flexible to consider in the meanwhile initiating a wider mechanism by which the public can decide review of the age of majority given the length who is and is not suitable to hold elected office. of time that has passed since the last one. Most candidates will also need to pass through

Age of electoral majority: conclusions and recommendations 63

the preliminary stage of a political party selection process before getting onto the ballot paper at all.

8.25 We recognise that particular circumstances at ages lower than 18 may need to be taken into account. However, in the context of a minimum voting age of 18, we can see no reasonable argument why the candidacy age should not be brought into line with the current voting age.

8.26 The Electoral Commission therefore recommend that the minimum age of candidacy be reduced from 21 to 18, the minimum voting age currently in force.

8.27 We note that the Scottish Executive have a Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament, provisions in which would lower the candidacy age to 18 for local elections in Scotland (a devolved matter and therefore outside the remit of this review). It is likely that any implementation of these provisions would take place before any of our own recommendations would be implemented in respect of other elections in the UK (if accepted by the Government), so we will watch developments in Scotland with interest.

Age of electoral majority: conclusions and recommendations

65 Appendix A Consultation activities and media coverage

Set out below is a non-definitive July 2003 chronological list of the various Publication of consultation paper How old is activities that the Commission old enough?, plus consultation summary and young person’s version 16?-18?-21?. Automatic undertook to promote the distribution to Commission’s standard consultation on this review, together consultees (i.e. circa 2,000 full papers and with a note of other activities and 1,400 summaries, covering all MPs, Peers, UK MEPs, AMs, MSPs, MLAs, Chief Executives coverage organised by others that and Leaders of principal area local authorities we are aware of. This is followed by and various other recipients such as politics a list of all media outlets that we are academics and democracy organisations). aware gave coverage to this review All versions available for download on the Commission’s website. during the public consultation period (14 July–31 October 2003). Launch press release – 143 mentions of review during this month in a range of media, including key national newspapers, and national and regional radio (see below for detailed list of media outlets).

Email to all Youth Voting Network member organisations, for onward distribution to their own members and networks. Non-Governmental YVN member organisations also took around a further 220 full reports and 1,370 summaries, plus around 4,000 copies of the young person’s version.

14 July – Commission organises launch event with young people and media at Queen’s Park Community School, North West London.

21 July – Commission representative observes fringe event with MYPs at annual sitting of the UK Youth Parliament, Lancaster University.

Age of electoral majority: appendix A 66

August A specific leaflet was drawn up for Northern Thirty mentions of the review in regional press Ireland and distributed to youth orientated and websites. shops across NI including HMV, Top Shop, Virgin Megastore, and Lifestyle sports. 12 August – Commission representative observes fringe event at National Convention of 1–17 October – HeadsUp website, Local Youth Councils, Liverpool John Moores www.headsup.org.uk (run by Hansard Society University. with financial support from the Commission’s New Initiatives Fund), dedicated a forum on September the subject. This was further promoted on the BBC’s Newsround Onion Street websites. Forty-six mentions of the review, mostly in regional publications. 1 October – Commission organises fringe event at Labour Party conference. Commission publishes Key Stage 3 and 4 lesson plan encouraging class discussion of 3 October – Commission chairs debate in the issues (sent direct to secondary schools). Monmouth High School. Article reviewing this lesson plan in the education section of The Independent on 8 October – Commission organises fringe event 11 September. at Conservative Party conference.

9 September – Leila D’Angelo (16 year-old) 9–11 and 16–18 October – Street theatre provides a personal view on the voting age performed at venues in Belfast and Londonderry. debate in a feature piece in The Guardian. 13–19 October – Local Government 23 September – Commission organises fringe Association’s Local Democracy Week (theme event at Liberal Democrat party conference. of ‘Listening to Tomorrow’s Voters Today’) specifically suggests voting age as a topic for 25 September – Commission organises debate and discussion at the week’s events. seminar with youth workers in Belfast. Feature on the voting and candidacy age review in 13 October – Commission organises ‘Question The Independent’s education section. Time’ style debate at Southwark Further Education College, with panel (Charles Hendry October MP (C), Simon Hughes MP (LD), Ellie Levenson Ninety-four mentions of the review in a wide (Fabian Review), Bridget Prentice MP (L), and range of media. Bryan Robson (Votes at 16 Campaign)) and invited audience of young people and media. BBC News 24 subsequently ran rolling interviews with the students on 31 October.

Age of electoral majority: appendix A 67

15 October – Commission representative Media coverage observes young people’s debate organised by (Coverage since the end of the consultation Stroud District Council. Commission organises period on 31 October is not included.) debate in Ysgol Penweddig, Aberystwyth. Alcester Standard, Alton Herald, Atherstone 16 October – Commission representative on Herald, Ballymena Guardian, Banffshire the platform at LGA Local Democracy Week Advertiser, Barry & District news, Bath national conference. Chronicle, BBC Asian Network, BBC Belfast, BBC News 24, BBC News Online, BBC 17 October – Commission representative chairs Northern Ireland (Newsline), BBC Radio Cymru, young people’s debate organised by Medway BBC World Service, Belfast Telegraph, Bexhill- Youth Parliament. on-sea Observer, Biddulph Chronicle, Bolton 22 October – Commission representatives take Evening News, Bordon Herald, Bordon Post, oral views from local government committee of Braintree and Witham, Bristol Observer, National Assembly for Wales. Broadway Ham & High, Burton Mail, Burton Trader, Caernarfon & Denbigh, Cambrian News, 23 October – In partnership with the Belfast Cambridge Evening News, Cannock & Rugeley Civic Trust, Commission organises debate Chronicle, Central FM (Scotland), Chester between three leading debating schools at Evening Leader, Chronicle Chester City, the Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings. Cobham News and Mail, Coleshill Herald, Subsequent media coverage in Northern Cornish Guardian, County Times, Craven Ireland press and television. Herald & Pioneer, Crediton Country Courier, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily 30 October – Commission representative Post, Daily Record, Darlington/Stockton Times, observes debate at Rhondda Youth Forum. Dorset Echo, Dukeries Advertiser, Dunmow Observer, East End Life, East Grinstead Courier, Post-October East London Advertiser, Eastern Daily Press, Continued to note late consultation responses Edinburgh Evening News Online, Ellon Times & for at least one month beyond formal closing of East Gordon Advertiser, Epolitix, Esher News public consultation period. and Mail, Evening Advertiser (Swindon), Evening Express – Extra, Evening Gazette 5 December – Commission facilitates a debate (Chelms), Evening Gazette (Middlesbrough), at an inter-schools conference in East Ayrshire. Evening Herald, Evening Herald (Plymouth), Evening News, Evening News (Edinburgh), Evening Post (Bristol Final), Evening Post (Nottingham), Evening Press, Evening Press (County York), Evening Press (Selby), Evening

Age of electoral majority: appendix A 68

Te legraph (Peterborough), Evening Times News, Selby Times, Sentinel Sunday, (Glasgow), Express and Star, Flintshire Evening Shropshire Star, Sky News, Sky News Radio, Leader, Gazette & Herald Ryedale, Gazette Sky News.com, South Shropshire Journal, (Blackpool), Gloucestershire Echo, Goole & South Wales Echo, South Wales Evening Post, Howden Courier, Grimsby Telegraph, Guardian Stafford Post, Staffordshire Newsletter, Stansted Unlimited, Ham & High Hampstead, Hamilton Observer, Star, Stourport News, Stroud News & Advertiser, Hartlepool Mail (County), Herald Journal, Sunday Sun, Surrey Comet Kingston, Express, Hertfordshire Star, Herts & Essex Ta meside Reporter, Taunton Times, Telegraph & Observer, Huddersfield Daily Examiner, Argus, Teletext, The Citizen (Gloucester), The Huntingdon & St Ives, ic Berkshire, ic Cornishman, The Guardian, The Independent, Huddersfield, ic Newcastle, ILR Talk, Informer The Scotsman, The Standard (Stratford-Upon- (Kingston), Inverurie Herald, Irish News, Irish Avon), The Times, This Is Gloucestershire, This Post, Journal, Kidderminster Shuttle, is London (Evening Standard online), This is Kidderminster Times, Lancashire Evening North Scotland, This Is North Somerset, This Is Telegraph, Lancaster Guardian, Leamington Spa Scunthorpe, This Is South Wales, Tyrone Courier, Leighton Buzzard Observer, Lichfield Constitution, Ulster Newsletter, Warwick Courier, Post, Lincolnshire Echo (Gainsborough), West Briton, Western Daily Press, Wigan Lincolnshire Echo (Lincoln), Littlehampton Evening Post, Wiltshire & Gloucester Standard, Gazette, Liverpool Echo, Local Government Wiltshire Chronicle, Windsor Ascot & Eton Chronicle, Manchester Evening News, Express, Wrexham Evening Leader, Yorkshire Manchester Evening News Final, Manchester Evening Post, Young People Now. Online, Medway News, Metro (London), Metro Café, Metro Manchester, Metro West Midlands, Mid Cornwall Advertiser, Mid Wales Journal, Morecambe Guardian, Morning Advertiser, Motherwell Times, Municipal Journal, Newark Advertiser, Newry Reporter, Newsnight – Scotland, Northern Echo, Northern Scot & Moray & Nairn Express, Northern Scot and Moray, Norwich Advertiser, Observer Online, Oldham Chronicle, Oldham Evening Chronicle, Ormskirk & West Lancashire, Oxford Mail, PCS News, Petersfield Post, Press & Journal, Preston Citizen, Radio 2 (Clive Anderson Show), Radio 4 (Today Programme), Radio 5 Live, Real Radio (Scotland), Rugeley Mercury, Rugeley Post, Saffron Walden Observer, Saga Radio, Salford Advertiser, Scarborough Evening

Age of electoral majority: appendix A 69 Appendix B Respondents to the consultation paper and consultation meetings

Academics District Council, East Hertfordshire District Mr Philip Cowley, Professor David Denver, Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Dr John Greenaway, Dr Lisa Harrison, Baroness East Staffordshire Borough Council, Eastleigh O’Neil, Professor Jo Sibert, Dr Nigel Thomas, County Council, Ellesmere Port and Neston Dr Dominic Wring. Borough Council, Epping Forest District Council, Essex County Council, Exeter City Councils Council, Exmouth Town Council, Frampton Cotterell Parish Council, Gateshead Council, Adur District Council, Antrim Borough Council, Geddington, Newton and Little Oakley Parish Ards Borough Council, Argyll & Bute Council, Council, Gloucestershire County Council, Arun District Council, Barnstaple Town Council, Goldalming Town Council, Great Baddow Bexley Council, Birmingham City Council, Parish Council, Great Comberton Parish Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council, Council, Great Torrington Town Council, Halton Blyth Valley, Bolton Metropolitan Council, Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Hanbury Parish Council, Hastings Borough Norfolk, Borough Council of Wellingborough, Council, Hebden Royd Parish Council, The Borough of Poole, Borough of Telford & Wrekin, Highland Council, Kerrier District Council, Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Bradninch Kesteven District Council, Kettering Borough Town Council, Breckland Council, Bubbenhall Council, Kingston upon Hull City Council, Parish Council, Burgess Hill Town Council, Kingston-upon-Thames, Lancashire County Burnley Borough Council, Bury Metropolitan Council, Leigh-on-Sea Town Council, Lewes Borough Council, Cambridge City Council, District Council, Liverpool City Council, London Cannock Chase Council, Canterbury City Borough of Camden, London Borough of Council, Carlisle City Council, Carrick District Enfield, London Borough of Hammersmith and Council, Ceredigion County Council, Fulham, London Borough of Lewisham, London Chelmsford Borough Council, Cheshire County Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Borough of Council, Chester City Council, City of Edinburgh Wandsworth, Luton Borough Council, Maidwell Council, Combe Hay Parish Council, Combroke with Draughton Parish Council, Manchester City Parish Council, Cotswold District Council, Council, Medway Council, Mid Beds District Darlington Borough Council, Dartford Borough Council, Mid Suffolk District Council, Mid Sussex Council, Denbighshire County Council, Dendy District Council, Middlesbrough Council, Dale Parish Council, Derbyshire Dales District Mildenhall Parish Council, Midlothian, Council, Derwentside District Council, Mid Sussex District Council, Milton Keynes Desborough Town Council, Devon County Council, Mole Valley District Council, New Council, Dingley Parish Council, Dudley Forest District Council, Newark & Sherwood Metropolitan Borough Council, Dumfries and District Council, Newtownabbey Borough Galloway Council, Durham County Council, Council, Norfolk County Council, North Devon East Grinstead Town Council, East Hampshire District Council, North East Derbyshire District

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 70

Council, North Norfolk District Council, North Stokenham Parish Council, Stourport-on- Shropshire District Council, Northampton Severn Town Council, Stroud District Council, Borough Council, Northumberland County Tamworth Borough Council, Taunton Deane Council, Norwich City Council, Nottinghamshire Borough Council, Thame Town Council, Three County Council, Nuneaton & Bedworth, Rivers District Council, Torbay Council, Ubley Okehampton Town Council, Old Stratford and Parish Council, Uttleford District Council, Drayton Parish Council, Ongar Parish Council, Warwickshire County Council, Waveney Oxfordshire County Council, Parish Council of District Council, Wellesbourne Parish Council, Hemyock, Pendle Borough Council, Penwith West Lothian Council, West Sussex County District Council, Peterborough City Council, Council, Weymouth & Portland Borough Pontypool Community Council, Preston City Council, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, Council, Purbeck District Council, Pytchley Witby Town Council, Woking Borough Council, Parish Council, Rackenford and Creacombe Wychavon District Council, Wycombe District Parish Council, Reigate and Banstead Council, Wymondham Town Council, Anonymous Borough Council, Renfrewshire Council, responses from two Parish Councils. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, Ribble Valley Borough Council, Ribchester Political parties and groups Parish Council, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough The Association of Local Government – Council, Rochford District Council, Rother Liberal Democrat Group District Council, Rotherham Metropolitan Bedfordshire Association of Town Borough Council, Rothwell Town Council, and Parish Councils Runnymede Borough Council, Rushcliffe Birmingham City Council – Borough Councils, Rushmoor Borough Liberal Democrat Group Council, Salford City Council, Scotforth Citizens Party of Halton Parish Council, Scottish Borders Council, The Conservative Party Shinfield Parish Council, Shipston-on-Stour Eastbourne Liberal Democrats To wn Council, Shrewsbury and Atcham Eccles Constituency Labour Party Borough Council, Shropshire County Council, Essex Association of Local Councils Somerset County Council, South Ayrshire Federation of Student Nationalists Council, South Bedfordshire District Council, Hertfordshire County Council – South Bucks District Council, South Lanarkshire Conservative Group Council, South Ribble Borough Council, South Hertfordshire County Council – Somerset District Council, South Tyneside Labour Group Metropolitan Borough Council, Southleigh The Justice Party Parish Council, Southwark Council, St. Kent County Council – Liberal Democrat Group Edmunsbury Borough Council, Staffordshire Lancaster City Council – Liberal Democrat Group County Council, Stockport Metropolitan The Liberal Party Council, Stoke Gifford Parish Council,

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 71

The Liberal Democrats Waveney District Council Cross-party Liberal Democrat Youth and Students Working Party Local Government Association – Wimbledon Constituency Labour Party Independent Group Women’s Coalition The Local Government Association Wrexham County Borough Council – The Local Government Information Unit Independent Group London Assembly – Labour Group York City Council – Labour Group London Borough of Ealing – Conservative Group Merton Liberal Democrats Politicians Metropolitan Borough of Wirral – Cllr Keith Aspden Conservative Group Cllr David Beechey Metropolitan Borough of Wirral – Labour Group Cllr Nigel Bennett Metropolitan Borough of Wirral – Liberal Cllr Richard Bertin Democrat Group Crispin Blunt MP [Reigate] The National Association of Local Councils Peter Bottomley MP [Worthing West] New Britain Cllr Bob Boyd North Lincolnshire Council – Labour Group Tom Brake MP [Carshalton and Wallington] North West Cambridgeshire Liberal Democrats Cllr Pam Brown North West Liberal Party Robert Brown MSP Reigate Liberal Democrats Malcolm Bruce MP [Gordon] Runnymede Independent Residents Group John Butterfill MP [Bournemouth West] Scottish Green Party Colin Challen MP [Morley, Middleton Scottish National Party and Rothwell] Scottish National Party – Westminster Group Cllr Alison Clish-Green SOLACE – Electoral Matters Panel Vernon Coaker MP [Gedling] Somerset County Council – Harry Cohen MP [Leyton and Wansted] Liberal Democrat Group Jocelyn Davies AM Southampton City Council – Janet Dean MP [Burton] Conservative Group Cllr Gareth Epps Southampton City Council – Labour Group Barbara Follett MP [Stevenage] Southampton City Council – Jane Griffiths MP [Reading East] Liberal Democrat Group Cllr Bob Hale Trafford Labour Group Oliver Heald MP [North East Hertfordshire] Tros Gynnal Cllr Stephen Hocking United Kingdom Social and Countryside Party Cllr Ken Holding The Ulster Unionist Party Ian Hudghton MEP

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 72

Cllr Claire Hudson Eleanor Scott MSP Mark Isherwood AM Baroness Sharpe of Guildford Dr Lynne Jones MP [Birmingham Selly Oak] Cllr John Smith Nigel Jones MP [Cheltenham] Cllr James Souper Cllr W. N. Jones Cllr Eleanor Stanier Charles Kennedy MP [Ross, Skye and Cllr Richard Stevens Inverness] Stewart Stevenson MSP Cllr Susan King John Swinbourne MSP Cllr Jenny Kingsley Matthew Taylor MP [Turo and St. Austell] Cllr Jean Kitchen Lord Tebbit Baroness Knight of Collingtree Cllr Richard Thomas Cllr Geoff Knight Cllr Nick Tregoning Cllr Paul Leake Cllr Peter Turner Cllr Patricia Lindsley Cllr Peter Tyzack Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP Rudi Vis MP [Finchley and Golders Green] Neil MacCormick MEP Jim Wallace MSP Khalid Mahmood MP [Birmingham Perry Barr] Cllr John Walters Cllr Chris Mellings Cllr Nick Way Cllr Alec Metcalfe Anne Widdecombe MP [Maidstone and Austin Mitchell MP [Great Grimsby] the Weald] Lord Monro of Langholm Cllr John William James Rhodri Morgan AM (on behalf of the National Lord Wolfson of Marylebone Assembly for Wales) Leanne Wood AM Cllr Hillary Myers Lord Naseby Organisations Dr Doug Naysmith MP [Bristol North West] The Association of Electoral Administrators Cllr Dale Needham The Audit Commission Cllr David Nettleton Citizenship Foundation (18 individual responses Stephen O’Brien MP [Eddisbury] from unnamed young people submitted via a Sandra Osbourne MP [Ayr] survey on their website) Owen Patterson MP [North Shropshire] Law Society of Scotland Cllr John Pindar Molesley Residents Association Cllr J. R. Mace Moray Trades Union Council Cllr Adrian Ramsay Rainham Residents Association Lord Renton Tattenham Residents Association Angus Robertson MP [Moray] UNISON Alex Salmond MP [Banff & Buchan] Upminster & Cranham Residents’ Association Cllr Nick Sandford

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 73

Votes at Sixteen Gillian Briggs Votes at 16 (Corporate response plus 658 Bristol Youth Council signatures on a petition) Victoria Brown www.vote16.co.uk (118 signatures on a petition) Burton Borough School (340 young respondents to survey questions) Young people, including youth Laura Burzio groups, schools, and organisations Peter Cairns Kathryn Callan representing young people Antonia Carmicheal Sabrina Akhtar Carnegie Young People Initiative Alnwick Duchess High School (92 individual Nita Chaudhry youth responses, some named and some Children in Scotland unnamed) Children’s Commissioner for Wales Richard Angell Children’s Rights Alliance for England Colette Anson The Children’s Society Area 41 Cirencester Youth Council Stacy Armstrong Commonwealth Advisory Group on Article 12 Children’s Rights Arun Youth Council Council for Wales of Voluntary Youth Services Paul Astlez Connexions Tees Valley Youth Board Jon Aylwin Cosmogirl (285 young respondents to S. Baker survey questions) Paul Barnes Gary Coull Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Local Crosby Youth Council Democracy Week with young people (54 young To m Cummins respondents to survey questions) Claire Daly Simon Beard E. Davies Ian Bennett Jackie Davies Lora Bennett Paul Davies Judy Bernstein Simon Davies Nicola Blackie Tammy Davies Blackpool Young Peoples Council Deptford Green School, Lewisham (90 young Steve Bloxham respondents to survey questions) Sophie Bonnett Alison Doherty Shauna Boyle Bronadh Donnally Karrie-ann Bresnahan M Donnally Lisa Brewer Noelle Donnelly Claire Briggs Graham Duffy

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 74

Dumfries and Galloway Council Youth Strategy Gemma Harkins Executive Group Nathan Hartley Richard Dunning Megan Henderson Jennifer Early Jamie Hepburn East Hampshire District Youth Focus Group Sally Hessey Gareth Edwards Craig William Hill Oliver Edwards Daniel Hughes Elgin Academy (15 individual responses, Jamie Hughes some named and some not) Nicola Hughes Madeleine Ellis Richard Hughes Natalie Ellis Sara Hughes James English Paul Hunter C. Evans Garry Inglis Melissa Evans Lauren Inglis Jade Farrington Forbes Ingram Debbie Farnsworth Vicky Jarvis Helen Firth Ross Johnson Karrie Flood Sarah Johnson Lyn-Su Floodgate Heather Jones Natalie Fontaine Sioned Jones Helen Clare Fox Cara Anne Jowitt Kyle Fox Sarah Kane Anna Freely Gemma Kelly Fulford School (416 young respondents Lyndsey Kemp to survey questions) Kids Club Network Funky Dragon Anna Klinnach Katie Furniss Charlene Langworth Denice Garnett Mike Lee Gateshead Youth Council Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Young Girlguiding UK (13 individual responses, from People from around Scotland young people, some unnamed and some L N Livingstone named) Local Youth Councils National Conference 2003 Catherine Golics (18 young respondents to survey questions) Abbey Gray Lodge Park Technology College (31 individual Jason Gray responses, some named and some not) Helen Hall Loreto Grammar School (14 individual Julie Hamilton responses, all named) Nicholas Hall Vicky Lowe

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 75

Glenn Luke respondents to survey questions) Shana Lynch Northfield School (786 signatures on a petition) Emma Lynton Dan O’Donnel Laura M Steven Parfitt Stuart MacDonald Gemma Parry Ewan MacKessack-Leitch Stephanie Payne Alex Mann Penweddig Youth Council (26 young Cheryl Marshall respondents to survey questions) Janet Mason Jenny Poll Kathryn Mason Pontypool Youth Council Bronagh McAlistair Prestatyn High School (53 individual Aedamer McCrossan respondents, some named and some not) Louise McElduff Promoting Active Democracy Loudly Leanne McElroy (17 individual responses from unnamed Caragh McLaughlin young people) Cecilia McLaughlin Alice Pryce-Williams Mary McShane Queens Park Community School (34 young Lisa McWayan respondents to survey questions) Medway Youth Parliament (result of debate Mark Ramsden involving 120 local young people) Kirstin Rauber Theresa Mercer Christopher Reid Mid Sussex District Council Young Citizens Day Rhondda Youth Forum (22 young respondents (result of debate involving 49 local young to survey questions) people) Owen Sanderson Kirsty Miles Scottish Youth Parliament Sheryl Milligan Andrew Scragg Phil Molyneux Melanie Scrivens Monmouthshire Youth Council (1,065 young Becky Seel respondents to survey questions) George Shannon Glyn Morgan Jennifer Shewan Michelle Munton Slemish Look Wider Group National Children’s Bureau Slough Borough Council Local Democracy National Youth Agency Week David Neale Leanne Smith Danielle Nicoll Michael Smith North Norfolk District Council Youth Action Southwark College (75 voted on set questions Group in a mock ballot following a panel debate) North Yorkshire County Council (2,723 young St Louise’s Comprehensive College (15

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 76

individual respondents, some named and Clare Wright some not) YMCA England Staffordshire County Council – Youth and Young Greens Community Services Youth Council of Northern Ireland Angus Stevens Youth Link Scotland Veronica Stevens Alysia Zapasnik Stroud District Youth Council (result of event with 80 local young people) Others Lisa Styner Anonymous response from one individual Jenny Summers Ron Abbott L. Sutherland Sylvia Abbott Angela Taylor J. B. Ainslie Tendring District Council Local Democracy Frances Alexander Week (96 young respondents to survey Jennifer Als questions) Sean Anstee Three Rivers District Youth Council David Bain Thurrock’s Secondary Schools M. A. Barnes Trinity High School, Redditch (19 individual John Barnett respondents, some named and some not) Dave Bartlet Claire Tyson Barry Batchelor HeadsUp website (collated summary of Gavin Baylis responses from individuals from 10 schools) Chris Begg Upper School, Abbot Beyne Staffordshire Margaret Begg Kate Vale Mark Bennett Ruth Waldram Mrs Tina Bird Craig Walley A. Black Freshta Watkin M. Blanch Nicola Webb David Boot West Lancashire District Youth Council Gavin Booth Western Education and Library Board (22 Cliff Bore individual youth respondents, all unnamed) Humprey Bowen Whitby Community College (231 respondents Richard Briand to survey questions) D. E. Bridge Martin Whitehouse MYP John Canvin Richard Whitmill John Cartwright Andy Williams John Chambers Christopher Williams Keith Chambers Dawn Williams

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 77

Linda Chambers John Griffin Peter Jones Stephen Churchman Tudor Griffiths John Kelly Robin Clarke Win Grimmette Katie Kempen Brian Clements Bryan Hall Alison Kerr Matt Clements Clem Harcourt Rod Keyes D. J. Close Carolyn Harford Geoff Knowles Hugh Colquhoun David Hart Melissa Lane Larry Coltman David Hay Heather Lardy Rob Copeland Mark Hayden Robin Lawson Mrs R. Corp Peter Herlinger John Lovatt Kate Cousins Tom Heydeman Rosemary Lovatt D. J. Cox Peter Hill R. Lucas Andy Cropp Robert Hill Robert Ludbrook Christopher Curry Trevor Hinxman Mary Lupton Mr B. R. Dearlove Paula Hirst Alistair MacDonald Peter Demetriadi Rose Hollis Gerry MacDonald Liz Dick L Holman Malcolm MacIntyre-Read Pete Dollimore John Horne Peter Mansfield Betty Duxbury Gareth Horsenell Samuel Margave Richard Elliott Helen Horsenell Chris Martin Mark Calder Ellis Keith House Maureen Martin Joan Ewens John Howard Gavin Mason Patricia Fearnley Will Howells Niall McCormack Margaret Feeny Sean Hudspeth Susan McCormack Ashley Final Neil Hughes Ruth McCullough Roy Fisher Jo Ingold Claire McDonald Linda Forbes Mike Inskip Sean McGreevy Mr S. Foster Ann Jackman Valerie McGreevy Derek Fox Mr Mark James Fiona Meehan Keith Fullalove Claire Jarrett James Millar Mr L. Gallagher The Right Reverend Martyn Audrey Mitton Sue Garden Jarrett John Morgan Martin George Alistair Jenkins Peter Morgan Pat Gerber Mr A. Jenns Stewart Morris Stephen Glenn Barbara Johnson Eileen Moss Simon Goldie Geoff Johnson H. T. B. Mulder Eric Grant Miss J. R. Johnson Michael Mumford Ben Gray Mrs H. A. Jones Dennis Murphy

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 78

Suneet Nayee Ella Robertson Reverend Canon E. R. Turner E. Nellis Jon Rogers Heather Turner Timothy Newey Harvey Rose Andrew Turvey David Newman John Rumball Mr M. Vanner Barry Newsome Alan Sandorek Lilian Waidge Anna O’Donnell Rob Saunders Steve Wallis Mark O’Keeffe J. Scruton Martin Ward Mrs N. Palm Roy Sheward Mike Ward Kate Pangbourne Rochard Simons A. Watkins Christopher Pannell Liz Simpson Mr R. S. Watson Mrs C. Patton John Skinner Robin Webber-Jones Gregg Patton Sarah Smalley Nicola Welsh Mr T. Patton Alan Smart Dave Wetzel J. M. Payne Jeff Smith John Wheat David Peacock Tim Smith Patrick Whittle David Penwarden Puja Solanki John Wilkinson Theodore Butt Philip Mr Stevens Rob Williamse Graham Phillips Mrs Stevens Stephen Williams Kendal Phillips Christopher Swain Jean Wilson Mr Robert Piper Johnlouis Swaine Mike Wilson Norman Lee Plumpton Malcolm Swallow Cavan Wood Brian Potter Eric Syddique A. J. Wood Mary Potts Robert Sykes Chris Wordley M. Poyntow Pamela Sylvester Richard Wright Ben Prescott Stuart Tamblyn Lee Scott Prettman John Tasker Dr Edward Pringle Nina Temple Miss H. A. Prowse Alun Thomas Joan Raikes Andrew Thomas Myles Raikes Celia Thomas Judith Rawson Huw Thomas Geoff Ray Mike Thomas Bob Rayner Mr A. P. Thomas William J. Read N. Thompson Mike Rigby K. W. Tipping Martin Rimmer M. Tittensor Olga Roberts Vanessa Tucker Alan Robertson Anthony Tuffin

Age of electoral majority: appendix B 79 Appendix C Statistical breakdown of responses to consultation paper and surveys

Consultation paper questions101

Q1. Do you think that lowering the voting Q3. If you are a young person, teacher or age, or allowing younger candidates to parent – in your experience, is citizenship stand for election, might encourage young education changing young peoples’ people to take part in elections? knowledge of and interest in elections and democracy? Yes No All individual responses 66% 34% Yes No Individual responses 77% 23% All individual responses 65% 35% from young people Individual responses 66% 34% All responses 71% 29% from young people (i.e. including survey/ All responses 65% 35% petition style responses) (i.e. including survey/ petition style responses) Q2. Do you think that lowering the voting age, or the age for standing as a candidate, Q4. Do you want to see a change in the would increase the levels of trust between current minimum age for voting (18)? young people and politicians? Yes No Yes No All individual responses 66% 34% All individual responses 55% 45% Individual responses 66% 34% Individual responses 69% 31% from young people from young people All responses 67% 33% All responses 55% 45% (i.e. including survey/ (i.e. including survey/ petition style responses) petition style responses) Q5. Do you want to see a change in the current minimum age for standing as a candidate (21)? Yes No All individual responses 64% 36% Individual responses 55% 45% from young people All responses 45% 55% 101 Not all respondents answered all questions in the consultation paper. (i.e. including survey/ Statistics accordingly represent the percentage of those petition style responses) answering that question.

Age of electoral majority: appendix C 80

Q6. If the voting age were to be reduced, what age do you think it should be reduced to? Under 16 16 17 18 Over 18 All individual responses 1% 61% 2% 35% 1% Individual responses from young people 2% 59% 3% 34% 1% All responses (i.e. including survey/ 2% 72% 8% 19% * petition style responses) * represents a figure of less than 0.5%

Q7. Would you advocate the same minimum voting age for all levels of election in the United Kingdom? Yes No All individual responses 97% 3% Individual responses 95% 5% from young people All responses 80% 20% (i.e. including survey/ petition style responses)

Q8. If the minimum age for standing as a candidate at UK elections were to be reduced, what age do you think it should be reduced to? Under 16 16 18 21 Over 21 All individual responses * 15% 47% 35% 2% Individual responses from young people * 9% 38% 48% 4% All responses (i.e. including survey/ 1% 33% 56% 10% 1% petition style responses) * represents a figure of less than 0.5%

Age of electoral majority: appendix C 81

Q9. Would you advocate the same minimum candidacy age for all levels of election in the United Kingdom? Yes No All individual responses 94% 6% Individual responses 97% 3% from young people All responses 78% 22% (i.e. including survey/ petition style responses)

Responses to ICM survey, November 2003

Q1. What do you think is the minimum age someone is legally able to do each of the following activities in the UK? 18+ years correct 15-17 years correct Vote in elections (18) 83% 67% Gambling in betting shop or casino (18) 67% 68% Finish compulsory education (16) 65% 68% Smoke (16) 55% 68% Drive a car (17) 53% 61% Drive a bus or lorry (21) 50% 30% Stand as a candidate in an election (21) 32% 18%

Q2. At what age do you think people should be able to vote in elections? Age of respondent 15–19 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ All Average (mean) response 17.4 17.7 17.5 17.8 18.1 18.5 18.4 18.0

Age of electoral majority: appendix C 82

Q3. If the choice came down to it, do you think the minimum voting age should be lowered to 16 years or kept at its present 18 years? Age of respondent 15–19 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ All Lower to 16 35% 33% 38% 27% 19% 11% 5% 22% Keep at 18 54% 67% 62% 73% 80% 88% 94% 78%

TQ4a.able Why8: Why do doyou you think think the the voting voting age age should should be bekept kept at 18?at 18? Age of Not enough Not mature Too young to Still Not Leaves time respondent life experience enough make decisions children interested to develop at 16 at 16 at 16 at 16 at 16 views views at 16 15–19 36% 22% 12% 3% 13% 3% 18+ 33% 30% 13% 9% 4% 2%

Q4b. Why do you think the voting age should be lowered to 16? Age of They are They have valid They are mature Other respondent part of society views and opinions enough at 16 15–19 36% 43% 8% 11% 18+ 46% 28% 24% 5%

Q5. At what age do you think people should be able to stand as a candidate in an election? Age of respondent 15–19 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+ All Average (mean) response 19.2 19.8 19.6 20.2 20.5 20.1 21.1 20.4

Age of electoral majority: appendix C 83

Q6. For each of the following statements, do you: agree strongly, tend to agree, neither agree nor disagree, tend to disagree, or strongly disagree? You need more If you’re old The voting age The voting age maturity to stand enough to vote, should be the should be the as a candidate you’re old enough same for all same for all than to vote to be a candidate elections elections Agree strongly 58% 18% 56% 51% Tend to agree 23% 20% 37% 38% Neither agree 3% 4% 1% 3% nor disagree Tend to disagree 9% 30% 3% 5% Strongly disagree 6% 27% 2% 3%

Extracts from Nestlé Family Monitor/MORI survey102

If there was a general election tomorrow, how likely would you be to vote (assuming you were old enough to vote) on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = absolutely certain not to vote, 10 = absolutely certain to vote)?

12 3 4 567 8910 7% 5% 6% 6% 20% 7% 10% 7% 9% 12%

People are able to vote in a general election in Britain at 18 years of age. At what age do you think people should be able to vote in a general election? Under 16 16 17 18 Over 18 Don’t know 23% 30% 7% 25% 8% 6%

102 Nestlé Family Monitor No. 16, July 2003, Young people’s attitudes towards politics. Based on self-completion surveys returned by 914 young people aged 11–18. The survey was conducted across 238 schools and colleges in England and Wales between March and May 2003.

Age of electoral majority: appendix C 84

Which, if any, of the reasons listed below might get you to vote for a political party? What would be the most important reason? Reason Most important reason Like their policies/ideas 55% 38% Feeling it is time for a change 35% 9% Like their leader 32% 7% Put off by the policies/ideas of other political parties 30% 4% Do not like the other political parties 29% 6% Like the political party generally 27% 5% Put off by the leader of the other main political parties 24% 5% Political party my parent(s) vote for 16% 3% It is the only political party I know something about 15% 3% Political party my friend(s) vote for 8% 3% Political party that other people I know vote for 6% 2% Other 3% 2%

Age of electoral majority: appendix C 85 Appendix D List of legal minimum ages

The following is a non-exhaustive At 10, legally you can: list of minimum ages for various •be held personally responsible for a crime legal rights and responsibilities.103 you have committed (8 in Scotland). At 12, legally you can: •watch any film classified up to 12. At 13, legally you can: • work in a part-time job, with some restrictions; • be found guilty of rape or other sexual offences; • be locked up for 72 hours or longer in a secure unit, if you are looked after by a local authority and you have a history of running away or causing harm to yourself. This requires a court order. At 14, legally you can: • go into a pub or bar by yourself, but you can’t buy alcohol, just soft drinks; • get a job doing light work part-time, with the following restrictions: you can’t work for more than two hours on a school day or Sunday, you can’t work before 7.00am or after 7.00pm, in school holidays you can’t work more than five hours a day or more than 25 hours a week; • ride a horse on a public road without a safety helmet; • own an air rifle or gun providing you are being supervised by a person over the age of 21 or using it at a proper rifle club or shooting gallery; 103 Most of the following list replicates the information provided on the website of Connexions Staffordshire (www.staffscareers.co.uk/law • be fined up to £1,000 if you are convicted and crime/legal-rights-and-responsibilities.cfm). The Electoral of a criminal offence in a Youth Court; Commission is grateful to them for permission to reproduce the lists here. Unless otherwise specified, these are the ages • drive a tractor, though not on a public road; applicable under the law of England and Wales.

Age of electoral majority: appendix D 86

• take part in a performance or sporting event •join a trade union; for which you are paid, as long as you or your • buy a lottery ticket or premium bond or bet parents have been granted a justices’ licence. on the football pools; At 15, legally you can: • get married, as long as your parents consent • watch any film classified up to 15; (no parental consent is required in Scotland); • open a Giro bank account, as long as it is • consent to sexual intercourse with another guaranteed by an adult; person over the age of 16; • be given a custodial sentence of up to two • buy cigarettes and tobacco; and a half years at a Young Offenders • make a solo flight in a glider; Institution or Secure Unit if you commit a serious offence. • apply for legal aid and assistance; At 16, legally you can: • leave home with the consent of your parents; • buy and drink beer or cider to have with a • be sentenced to one of the following by a meal in a pub, restaurant or hotel. You can Youth Court: a probation order for up to three also buy liqueur chocolates; years, a community service order requiring between 40 and 240 hours work, a •join the Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force, combination order, putting on probation as long as your parents give their permission; and requiring community service, a drug • be used by another person for the purpose treatment and testing order; of begging; • choose your own doctor and consent to •register as a blood donor, but you won’t be medical or dental treatment; asked to donate until you are 17; • enter into a contract for housing though you • enter or live in a brothel (you could also have can’t be given a lease or tenancy agreement; done this up to the age of 4, after that until 16 • apply for your own passport, with your it is illegal); parents’ consent; • drive an invalid carriage or moped on a • buy a knife, axe, razor or article with a blade; public road; • be liable to pay income tax and • leave school after the last Friday in June and National Insurance. start full-time work on the following Monday, with the exception of betting shops, pubs At 17, legally you can: and off-licences; • have a licence to drive a car, light motorcycle, • set yourself up as a scrap metal dealer; small goods vehicle or a tractor on a public road;

Age of electoral majority: appendix D 87

• have a private pilot’s licence; • face charges in an adult court; • donate blood without your parents’ consent; •serve on a jury; • join the Navy as an officer with your parents’ • be sued in your own right; consent or join the RAF (at 17 years and 6 •make a will; months) or the Army (17 years and 9 months) without the consent of your parents); • get married without parental consent; • be interviewed by the police without an • get a tattoo; appropriate adult; •donate your internal organs in the event of • buy or hire a firearm and ammunition your death; or crossbow. • vote in local, national and European elections; At 18, legally you can: • open a bank account without your • view any film, regardless of its classification; parents’ signature; • apply for a copy of your original birth • claim income support; certificate (if you are adopted); • apply for a passport without your • buy alcohol in a pub, bar or off-licence; parents’ consent. • apply for a licence to sell alcohol; At 19, legally you: • join any of the armed forces without • lose the automatic right to a free education; parental consent; • become liable to pay for dental treatment. • have a licence to drive a medium sized At 21, legally you can: goods vehicle; •have a licence to drive a powerful motorcycle, • enter into a contract in your own right, so you a public service vehicle (like a bus), or a can have a lease or tenancy agreement, buy heavy goods vehicle; a house or land, or act as an executor of a will; • stand as a candidate in local, national and • pawn something at a pawn shop; European elections. • expect to be paid the minimum wage; • buy fireworks; • have a commercial pilot’s licence; • enter a betting shop and place a bet; • leave home without the consent of your parents;

Age of electoral majority: appendix D 88 Appendix E Recruitment and deployment of under 18s in the armed services of the UK

The text of this Appendix is taken Title of the treaty verbatim from the Explanatory 1. Optional Protocol to the [United Nations] Memorandum on the Optional Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Subject matter the Child on the Involvement 2. The purpose of the Optional Protocol (OP) of Children in Armed Conflict.104 is to strengthen the rights of children by increasing the protection afforded to children The United Kingdom subsequently by prohibiting their participation in armed ratified the Optional Protocol on conflict. The United Kingdom was fully involved 24 June 2003. with the negotiation and drafting of the OP, which was adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly on 25 May 2000. The United Kingdom signed the OP during the UN Millennium Summit on 7 September 2000.

3. In summary, the effects of the OP are to: • require that all feasible measures be taken to ensure that members of the armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities; • prohibit the compulsory recruitment of those who have not attained the age of 18 years into national armed forces; • raise the minimum age for voluntary recruitment from the previous limit of fifteen years; • require safeguards to ensure that recruits under the age of 18 must: – be genuine volunteers;

104 Laid before Parliament alongside the Optional Protocol by the – have the informed consent of their parents Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 24 or legal guardians; February 2003. The Explanatory Memorandum appears of the – be fully informed of the duties involved in website of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (www.fco.gov.uk – click on ‘Official Documents’, then ‘Treaties’, then ‘Explanatory Memoranda’, then ‘Explanatory Memoranda presented to Parliament in 2003’). The Protocol itself (Cm 5759) can be downloaded from the same page on the website.

Age of electoral majority: appendix E 89

such military service; and leaving age makes available to young persons – provide reliable proof of age prior to entering the job market the significant acceptance into national military service; and training and other opportunities offered – states to take all feasible measures to by the Armed Forces. prevent recruitment and use of U18s by armed groups which are distinct from the 7. Ratification of the OP requires no change armed forces of the State. to the policy for recruitment into the UK Armed Forces. Ministerial responsibility 8. It should be noted that, once they have 4. The Foreign Secretary is responsible for entered the Armed Forces, recruits must international human rights policy. The Secretary undergo basic general military training followed of State for Defence is responsible for policy by a period of more specialised professional matters relating to the Armed Forces. training before joining the trained strength and thus becoming liable for employment in military Policy considerations operations. This training is thorough and takes General time and so the number of personnel under the 5. This Optional Protocol to the Convention on age of 18 on the trained strength has always the Rights of the Child raises the minimum age over the last decade tended to be small; at 1 of recruitment of young persons into armed June 02 it was 1291 (200 Royal Navy, 979 Army forces and their direct participation in hostilities and 112 Royal Air Force) which represented from that contained in the Convention on less than 1% of the total trained strength of the the Rights of the Child, and provides new armed forces. Very few of these personnel (i.e. safeguards. It sets important new standards of those both under the age of 18 and on the that the UK believes should now be ratified trained strength) are posted to higher readiness and implemented by as many states as (i.e. ‘front line’) units which are those liable to be possible. Universal ratification will be a deployed into actual combat. Therefore, the significant step towards helping children, likelihood of Service personnel under the age sometimes as young as seven or eight years of 18 taking a direct part in hostilities was and is old, who are being used as child soldiers, in any case small, even before the introduction often by non-government forces, in conflicts of new protective measures which will serve to around the world. reduce that number even further.

6. In common with many countries that rely on 9. It has been decided that the Army will no volunteers, as opposed to conscripts, to staff longer routinely deploy soldiers under the age their armed forces, the minimum age for entry of 18 on any operations outside the UK except to the UK Armed Forces is the normal minimum where the operation is of a purely humanitarian school leaving age. Recruitment at the school nature, and where no hostile forces are

Age of electoral majority: appendix E 90

involved. Also, additional procedures have •while Army personnel under the age of 18 been adopted whereby those few Service may continue to undertake a limited range of personnel, from whichever Service, under the duties with resident units in Northern Ireland, age of 18 will be removed from situations in they do not participate in activities in direct which their Commanders in Chief and Chief support of the civil powers; of Joint Operations deem there to be a greater • under 18s are not deployed as aircrew; and than low risk of direct involvement in hostilities. • in line with UN policy, personnel under the 10. In most cases of pre-operational preparations, age of 18 are not deployed on UN personnel under the age of 18 will be removed peacekeeping operations from units before they deploy from the UK for the particular operation. However, some units, 11. For the reasons explained in paragraph especially ships of the Naval Service, may find 10 above, there may arise a few situations themselves in unpredicted circumstances, where exceptionally there is a risk of direct diverted at very short notice from normal involvement in hostilities by Service personnel peacetime duties around the world to operations under the age of 18 and in which, unusually, in which there is a genuine risk of direct it is not practicable to withdraw the Service involvement in hostilities. In these cases, personnel under the age of 18 without it might not always be feasible to remove undermining the operational effectiveness or replace personnel: either because the of that individual’s unit, risking the successful geographic situation of the ship or unit makes completion of the military mission and/or the removal physically impossible; or because the safety of other personnel. The Government individual concerned, regardless of age, is considers that the possibility of such an integral member, playing a key role, in the exceptional situations arising, despite the fact collectively trained team which enables his/her that it has taken all feasible measures to avoid unit to deliver its operational capability. them, is not inconsistent with the obligations set Therefore, in some albeit unusual and therefore out in Article 1. The United Kingdom explained its infrequent circumstances, the last minute interpretation of Article 1 in a statement made removal or replacement of such crucially at the time of signature of the OP. important personnel could well place at risk the operational capability and combat effectiveness Financial of the relevant unit and endanger the safety 12. There will be a small, but unquantifiable cost of other personnel. Such instances and the associated with the less than full deployability numbers involved are few partly for the reasons of the very small proportion of Armed Forces set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 above, and also personnel on the trained strength that are under because the Armed Forces will continue their 18 years of age. previous policies and practices to protect those members under the age of 18. For instance:

Age of electoral majority: appendix E 91

Reservations and Declarations thereby put at risk the successful completion 13. In accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2, of the military mission and/or the safety of of the OP, the United Kingdom will declare at other personnel.’ ratification that the minimum age at which it will Implementation permit entry into its national armed forces is the age of 16 (a copy of the draft declaration is 16. The provisions of the OP are fully attached at the end of this document). implemented in the policies and procedures of the United Kingdom. There is no requirement 14. In accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2, for any new legislation to give effect to the OP. of the OP, the UK will submit the attached description of the safeguards maintained in Presented to Parliament February 2003 respect of the recruitment of U18s. Attachments 15. For the reasons explained in paragraph 1. Description of safeguards maintained in 11 above, the Government intends to reaffirm respect of recruitment of Under-18s into the its understanding of Article 1 of the OP, which it Armed Forces of the United Kingdom set out in the following interpretative statement made on signing the OP: 2. Draft declaration on the minimum age ‘The United Kingdom will take all feasible for recruitment into the Armed Forces of the measures to ensure that members of its United Kingdom armed forces who have not yet attained the age of 18 years old do not take a direct part Description of safeguards in hostilities. However, the United Kingdom maintained in respect of recruitment understands that Article 1 of the Protocol of under-18s into the armed forces would not exclude the deployment of members of their armed forces under the age of the United Kingdom of 18 to take a direct part in hostilities where: 1. The United Kingdom Armed Forces are manned solely by volunteers; there is no a) there is a genuine military need to deploy compulsory recruitment. The minimum age their unit or ship to an area in which hostilities for entry into the United Kingdom Armed Forces are taking place; and is 16 years which reflects the normal minimum b) by reason of the nature and urgency of school leaving age, although they may apply the situation: to join from the age of 15 years 9 months, which reflects the minimum of the various – it is not practicable to withdraw such statutory minimum school leaving ages in the persons before deployment; or constituent regions of the United Kingdom. – to do so would undermine the operational effectiveness of their ship or unit, and

Age of electoral majority: appendix E 92

2. A declaration of age, backed by an Draft Declaration to be made at authoritative, objective proof (typically the ratification on the minimum age production of an authentic birth certificate) is an integral and early requirement in the recruitment for recruitment into the armed process. Should an individual volunteering to forces of the United Kingdom enter the United Kingdom Armed Forces be The minimum age at which individuals may found either by their own declaration or by join the UK Armed Forces is 16 years. This inspection of supporting evidence of age to minimum broadly reflects the minimum be under 18 years of age, special procedures statutory school leaving age in the UK, that are adopted. These procedures include: is the age at which young persons may first be permitted to cease full-time education and • The involvement of the parent(s) or legal enter the full-time employment market. Parental guardian(s) of the potential recruits. consent is required in all cases of recruitment • Clear and precise explanation of the under the age of 18 years. nature of duties involved in military service to both the individual and their parent(s)/guardian(s). • As well as explaining the demands of military life to the individual volunteer and establishing that he/she remains a genuine volunteer, the requirement that the parent(s) or guardian(s), having been similarly informed, freely consent to the individual’s entry into the Armed Forces and duly countersign the appropriate application or other appropriate recruitment process forms.

3. The United Kingdom considers that this process satisfies the requirements set out in the Optional Protocol to safeguard the interests of recruits under the age of 18.

31 January 2003

Age of electoral majority: appendix E The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Tel 020 7271 0500 Fax 020 7271 0505 [email protected] Mainwww.electoralcommission.org.uk headings

The Electoral Commission

Age of electoral majority Report and recommendations

ISBN: 1-904363-39-3 Age of electoral majority Report and recommendations April 2004 April

Age of electoral majority Report and recommendations