Member's statement: Voting Age
Member's statement by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 June 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Voting Age
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496204
Read the official Assembly record
Text
"It is evident that this generation of young people are among some of the most informed and politically aware we have ever seen. Constant calls for change, progress and development, whether it is in social media, in protest or in youth organisations, all serve as evidence that youth's contribution to society and politics is unfading. Through the Northern Ireland Youth Forum and the Secondary Students' Union of Northern Ireland, it is clear that young people have determination and ambition to highlight what is essential to their lives. Manifestos produced by NUS-USI and the Northern Ireland Youth Forum clearly outline key policy areas that young people are interested in and demonstrate concise, thorough plans for change. Why should these voices be overlooked by not lowering the voting age to 16? This is what I am here today to raise. We have an upcoming general election, described as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shift the dial of power in the United Kingdom. Parties who are elected will have the futures of young people in their hands. It is a missed opportunity that we did not make sure that the voices of young people are heard, so they can have their say, by lowering the voting age to 16. Young people experience the decisions of political leaders first-hand. We encounter the consequences, witness their effects and form ideas for change, ideas of how young people can influence change; yet they are silenced. From 16, they are given a National Insurance number; they are working. Sixteen-year-olds are given a choice to leave compulsory education, leave home and even join the armed forces. How can young people be allowed to serve in the armed forces yet not have a say in how it will be run or by whom? It is time that they were given a voice. The right to vote would empower 16- and 17-year-olds to engage with democracy, giving them the tools to influence their future through politics. The right to vote will engage 16- and 17-year-olds who already have an interest in democracy and politics, bringing forward a whole new informed and passionate group of voices. The right to vote will ignite conversation among these young people, conversations that will allow already enthusiastic young people to inspire others who, perhaps, are not so enthused just yet. With that information, I implore Ministers to listen to the voices of young people, recognise the significant impact that their actions will have on the lives of 16- and 17-year-olds and, finally, give them the right to vote by lowering the voting age to 16."
While I agree wholeheartedly with what I just said, those are not my words. That statement was written for me by a 17-year-old. Charlotte from my constituency of North Down wrote that statement for me so that she could have her voice, as well as those of young people, heard in the Chamber. It is time that 16- and 17-year-olds are given the vote.
493 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:42 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.