Debate contribution: Voting Age: 16- and 17-year-olds
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Voting Age: 16- and 17-year-olds
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4644823
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is always an interesting topic, and I recognise that there are sincerely held views on different sides of the debate. However, ultimately, one has to reach a considered position, and the position of the Democratic Unionist Party is that we do not support reducing the voting age. Throughout the world, voting rights are generally reserved for adults, and 18 is the internationally recognised age of adulthood, including by the United Nations. Few in the Assembly would claim that young people are being suppressed by their not being able to perform a range of activities until they are 18. Such activities include taking out a mortgage; serving on a jury; becoming a police officer; fighting in our armed forces; getting married without parental permission; watching certain movies or content; buying alcohol, tobacco, fireworks or a gun; and participating in gambling.
Young people mature and grow into adulthood over a number of years, but there needs to be a point at which they legally become an adult. We agree that that should be at 18 and that that should be the age of enfranchisement. There are already too many pressures on young people to grow up fast. Childhood should be respected and have certain protections from the pressures and responsibilities of adult life, which will come soon enough to those young lives. Why have those who want to lower the age of voting below the age of adulthood picked the arbitrary age of 16? Why not 15, 14 or any other age?
No. I do not have the time that you had. One serious concern is that lowering the voting age to 16 would put schools on the front line of party political campaigning. The focus in schools should be on education and broadening the mind, not on vote capturing. There would be the potential and temptation for some teachers to become election campaigners. Some may point out that the law enables a young person to take certain decisions at the age of 16, whether it be to leave home or school or have consensual sex. Generally speaking, however, government policy does not actively promote doing those things at 16, whereas exercising the right to vote is proactively encouraged. Extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds has potential impacts on the health and well-being of those in that age group, and we should not pretend otherwise. A significant proportion of 16- and 17-year-olds still live at home and go to school. Have those advocating a change to the voting age considered the external forces that would come into play? Just imagine the online barrage of political advertising that that group would face. There are forums and platforms that young people of any age can use to influence politics and, indeed, decisions by adults before, during and after an election. That is where our focus should be: on enabling children and young people to make their mark without rushing their development or, indeed, placing obligations on their shoulders. Without prior investment in education that reflects a young person's new rights and without ensuring that young people hear a wide range of views, 16-year-olds will not be ready to make an informed choice. The Alliance amendment to the motion acknowledges that. We still do not believe, however, that the overarching aim of votes for 16- and 17-year-olds is the right one. In summary, our considered position is that we do not support lowering the age of enfranchisement below adulthood — the age of 18 — as is internationally recognised. Let children enjoy their childhood without their having to take on all the pressures of adulthood.
602 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.08 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.