*CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY *

Baroness (Eluned) Morgan of Ely, Shadow FCO Minister

Speech to move motion in support of votes for 16 and 17 year olds in EU Referendum

I rise to move motion A1.

My Lords, may I start by thanking the Noble Lady the Minister and the Noble Minister for
their cooperation on this Bill. The Government has been in listening mode and has
understood that the vote on whether we leave or remain a part of the EU is one of the
greatest political questions which will be put to this nation this century. Ensuring that there
is a valid and fair vote, and ensuring that the public has the knowledge it needs to make an
informed choice were some of the key criteria we were trying to attain in the course of our
debate, and we are grateful that the government has responded.
We now have one final hurdle where we are at odds with the government. This House voted
overwhelmingly in favour of ensuring that 16 and 17 year olds were given a voice and a vote
in the forthcoming EU referendum.
The case for 16-17 year olds to vote
Many were convinced that it did not make sense to:
Continue with the inconsistency which now exists in terms of when young people
should be allowed to participate in the political process across the UK.
Others were persuaded that the enthusiasm and intelligence that was demonstrated
by Scottish 16-17 year olds in the Scottish independence referendum (where more of
that age group voted than 18-24 year olds proportionately) would be replicated
across the UK.
Many were satisfied that the factual based evidence from Austria and Norway
demonstrated that it makes sense to encourage young people to vote while they are
still living in the communities where they were brought up where they can be
encouraged by their parents to undertake their duties as citizens, before many leave
home at the age of 18, and were further convinced that evidence from those
countries showed that if they start voting at the age of 16 they are more likely to
continue to vote when they are older. Encouraging in particular the young to
participate in our democratic system must be something that we all wish to see
developed.
Many peers were reassured by the fact that todays 16-17 year olds are the most
informed 16-17 year olds in history, having undertaken citizenship classes at school
and having information not at their fingertips, but usually at their thumb tips with
their constant tapping of their mobile phones.
But mostly, people were aware that this would be a once in a generation
opportunity for these young people to express their view on a long term relationship

between our country and EU Member States, an outcome that would affect them
longer than any of us, and over which they should have a say.
We were deeply disappointed that the Commons did not support our approach, and were
extremely surprised when the Clerks suggested that the issue was subject to financial
privilege.
I will address the issue of invoking financial privilege later, but first, let me turn to the
alternative amendment that we have set out.
Alternative Amendment
We are saddened that the government has not had the opportunity to deal with the merits
of this amendment in principle, but due to the fact that financial privilege has been invoked
has been made to hide behind financial privilege as the arcane conventions of both Houses
dictate, although we are pleased that they have in their letter engaged in the merits of the
case itself.
We have determined therefore to submit a new amendment which addresses the issue of
cost.
We would dispute the amount that the Government has suggested would be the cost of this
amendment.
The amount suggested is 6m. Now 6m in the context of total government expenditure of
760bn is chicken feed. It amounts to less than one, one thousandth of one percent of the
UK budget.
The cost of the referendum is not known, but we do know that the cost for the referendum
on changing the electoral system to a PR mechanism was 75m. Given the way that young
people energised the campaign in Scotland, even using the governments own figures it
would be easy to justify this additional expense.
It would be extremely useful if the Minister could give us a detailed understanding and
breakdown of how it came to this figure.
We would accept that around 800k would have to be spent on sending 16-17 year olds the
information through the post during the campaign promised to other voters. (Although the
idea of 16 -17 year olds waiting for information arriving by post, does sound a little like the
dark ages! I doubt whether most of them have ever received a letter!) But we would
dispute the fact that the government can include in their estimates, a calculation for any
additional costs for counting and regional counting officers expenses. After all we have no
idea what the turn out will be with, or without 16 and 17 year olds voting, so the
government must be stabbing in the dark, and the cost for counting does not change
according to turn out according to the head of the Association of Electoral administrators.
So whether we saw a 30% turn out by the British Public in the referendum, or an 80% turn
out, it would not change the amount that public officials are paid, so an additional 1.5m

(even if they all turned out to vote, would not make a difference to the cost of counting and
regional counting officers expenses).
Indeed the Chief Executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators John Turner has
stated clearly that:whilst the govt estimates that 4.2m of this 6m would form a part of the costs of the
conduct of the poll and thus come from the consolidated fund to cover counting officers and
regional counting officers expenses we would question this, as the conduct of the poll has
nothing whatsoever to do with registration. Under the fees and charges statutory instrument
order 2015 number 476, it is clear that expenses for registration purposes would not be
allowed. Indeed for the last parliamentary election- not one penny for the conduct of the poll
went to registration.
So let me be clear- we refute the figure suggested by the Government in terms of their
estimated cost of implementing this amendment.
We have nevertheless in our new amendment sought to give a clear indication of how costs
could be saved.
Noble Lords who have been following the debate in detail, will be aware that currently,
Electoral Registration Officers write to households and ask for a list of individuals in that
household. These individuals are subsequently sent a registration form. They ask -not just
people who are over 18, but also people who will attain the age of 18 in the next year.
So,17 year olds and many 16 year olds are already invited to put their names on the list. (In
other words -we know who these young people are already). They would simply need to
complete the second part of the exercise in terms of registration, which you can be pretty
clear most of this generation would do online. (no postage- no cost!)
The people therefore we need to focus on are those who will attain the age of 16 the
new age of voting in the referendum in the forthcoming year. We have emphasised time
and again however in Committee and at Report stage that this would be relatively easy, as
we know where these young people are. They are at school.
Let me emphasise in response to the comments made by the Electoral Commission, that our
amendment does not preclude Electoral Registration Officers from also chasing up 16 and
17 year olds. It does not stop EROs from using all available methods to identify and
encourage registration, and the Electoral Administration Authority does not think that it
would be difficult to make changes to the electoral registration service.
It would be a relatively simple and let me emphasise an extremely cheap way of registering
these young people by writing directly to the schools to ask for help in sending out an e mail
with a registration form attached as is currently done according to the Association of
Electoral Administrators with University students. I dont know of many (if any) secondary
schools who do not provide their pupils with a school e mail address. The actual costs of
registration therefore would be absolutely minimal.

Neither would it be a tremendous additional increase in work for Electoral Registration

Officers If, as has been suggested we are talking about an additional 1.5million voters, then
as there are 380 Electoral Registration Officers (one for each relevant local authority) we are
only talking on average of each ERO registering less than an additional 4,000 new voters.
Not an enormous additional burden.
The organisation Bite the Ballot are coordinating a National Voter Registration Drive, aiming
to inspire hundreds of thousands of 15-24s to register in the first week of February. This will
include a national network of schools, colleges, sixth forms, teachers, school leaders,
teachers' unions, students' unions, youth clubs, charities, NGOs, community organisers.
They are doing it anyway. At no additional cost!
The Electoral Commission itself has noted that 'EROs should be 'working with schools and
colleges within their area and is a key area of activity we expect all EROs to explore'
Not the right place to make a change
Let me turn now to the issue which seems to be vexing the Government, and that is, that
this is not the right place to make such a change.- and that this should be debated seriously
as a part of a wider debate on the franchise.
We are happy that the Government agrees that there is a need for a wider debate on the
franchise, and it would be useful to know a time table when the government intends to
bring forward this debate. Could the Government give us a concrete answer on that please?
The Government says that this should not be done in a piecemeal way, and on the Labour
benches we believe that there should be a comprehensive Constitutional Convention to
address this, and other issues relating to our democracy. But I was under the impression
that this Government enjoyed piecemeal change!
It was this Government which gave permission for 16 -17 year olds to vote in the Scottish
referendum campaign. It is this Government who have allowed the Scottish Parliament to
decide whether it wants to introduce this for Scottish Parliament elections. (knowing full
well that it was the SNPs intention to allow this to happen) . It was this government who
have allowed the Welsh Assembly to introduce votes at 16, again knowing full well that this
would have the support of the Welsh Assembly.
It is not the case that this amendment would undermine the legitimacy of the referendum
as we have no idea of how young people would vote.
My favourite riposte by the Government to this amendment however is the one where it
says that as the other place has clearly and repeatedly expressed a view - opposition peers
seeking to push their own agenda, for which they have no democratic mandate should take
note of these facts.
Let us not forget that the Governments mandate rests on a vote by less than 37% of the
British public who voted. More people voted for Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Green candidates
who had this in their manifestos than voted Conservatives who did not.

It is also worth noting that the Noble Lady the Minister who is leading for the Government
on this Bill was the Shadow Chief Whip when she led this house to 81 defeats of the Labour
Government (including 9 in her first month in that role!) from 1st July when she took up her
post to the 2010 General election. Lets not forget also that the Labour Government had a
substantially larger mandate than this Government. So perhaps the Minister could enlighten
us as to whether his colleague on this Bill now believes that all those victories were wrong?
Constitutional aspects of this matter
Let me know turn briefly to the constitutional aspects relating to the relationship between
the two houses which have been thrown up as a result of financial privilege being applied
to this amendment.
I am no expert on constitutional matters and no doubt there are many on benches around
this chamber who can guide me on some of these matters. I have however, been trying over
the past few days to gain an understanding of how and when financial privilege is invoked.
I have been trying specifically to find out who decides on these matters and what are the
guidelines or factors which determine the threshold of when and whether such a decision
should be subject to financial privilege or not.
My understanding is that it is the Clerks of the Commons who determine whether a matter
is subject to financial privilege or not. As this decision is so crucial to the ability of the Lords
to consider amendments, and as the Government has no option but to cite financial
privilege as the reason for rejecting an amendment, I would have assumed that the system
for deciding these matters would be open and transparent with a clear set of criteria for
determining each outcome. At the very least there would be, I assumed a very clear
indication of a minimum threshold where financial privilege would kick in. But search as I
have, and I have requested specifically of the Commons Clerks and answer on the minimum
threshold - I have been unable to find anything written anywhere which sets out what the
criteria would be. Could the Noble Lord the Minister refer me to such document if one
exists?
Now I understand that the Government has a clear political agenda, not in this Bill, but in all
Bills which come before this House- we accept that they have a majority and have been
elected and are accountable. But if it is the Commons Clerks who are unelected and
unaccountable who decide what is subject to financial privilege, then at the very minimum
we need extremely clear and transparent procedures for determining this. Procedures
which, as they have such a major impact on the ability of this Chamber to influence policy
decisions, should be subject to detailed scrutiny and debate and should be absolutely
transparent. This does not seem to be the case currently, and I would ask the Noble Lord the
Minister whether he agrees that this is a matter which needs to be addressed urgently.
It is extremely difficult to explain to the public why 6m is subject to financial privilege in
this Bill, whilst the Government itself tried to sneak through in an SI an amount of over 4bn
in relation to tax credits.

If the Clerks are going to cite financial privilege in a case such as this, then it can be cited for
almost every policy change which we suggest which will incur a minimal cost. It could be
argued that the powers of this chamber, whose role is to make the Government think
again on policy issues are severely restricted, (in particular in relation to electoral issues,
where the other chamber have a very clear vested interest). It is a shame that this issue has
now become involved in a wider constitutional debate on financial privilege but we hope
that peers will still assess the merits of this case on the substance of the amendment.
We believe that 16-17 year olds are and can be responsible participants in our democracy,
we believe that this is their one off opportunity, a once in a generation vote on the
profoundly important issue of whether we should remain a member of the EU or not. I urge
fellow peers to support us on this issue and to give these young people the respect and
voice that they deserve. I move.
-ENDS-