Debate contribution: Voting Age: 16- and 17-year-olds

Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on 24 September 2024.

MLA

Mr Harry Harvey

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 4644859

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There has been an interesting debate so far on an issue that engages the interests of a specific cohort of young people. I am always delighted to go into schools or to address school groups that are visiting the Building and engage with them on a wide range of issues. Some of those 16- and 17-year olds remind me of a much younger Harry Harvey — a political anorak with strong views and an interest in the political system. I must admit, however, that they are very much in the minority. Most young people are concerned with their studies, their hobbies and the prevailing youth culture at any given time. It is fair to say that the young people who are campaigning for change on the issue are already politically aware and engaged, which is wonderful to see. However, the vast majority of those who stand to be affected by such a change will not fall into that category. There has been an obvious failing across society and the education system to equip young people for civic life, That is a failing that we should address much more readily regardless of today's debate, which is something that the Alliance amendment seeks to acknowledge. Whilst civic education is most definitely lacking, simply enhancing the curriculum to better address topics such as voting, the political system and general politics will not in itself create a change in adolescents' behaviour and attitude towards engagement with the political system. An inherent maturity is required before an individual is both willing and capable of partaking in the political process. Today's debate is, therefore, where we believe the line should be drawn and what indicators we should look at to draw that line appropriately. There is no doubt that, when met with such articulate and engaged young people as those involved in this campaign, the issue before us is difficult. However, when faced with a difficult issue, we have to reach an objective and rational position. We must, therefore, look at the facts. Across the globe, voting rights are generally reserved for adults. Eighteen is the internationally recognised age of adulthood. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as:

"every human being below the age of eighteen years".

Much has been made throughout the debate of which rights and responsibilities are enjoyed at 16 and which are reserved until the legal age of adulthood. It is worth remembering that many of the activities that have been mentioned, such as joining the army, getting married and leaving home, are restricted by parental consent, which is legally required. The age for the overwhelming majority of activities and decision-making on issues that involve individual autonomy remains 18. They include, to name but a few examples, jury duty, unrestricted driving, alcohol and tobacco consumption and even the rental of some films and computer games. It is somewhat ironic that some parties in the House that argue to give 16-year-olds more responsibility by allowing them to vote are those that argued for and supported raising the smoking age to 18 and sought to put further restrictions on young drivers and drinkers for their own safety. There is an irony there. Those who seek the extension of the franchise often advance the well-rehearsed argument that young people are affected by decisions taken in this place or at Westminster. That is absolutely correct, but the youngest of children are also impacted by decisions that politicians take. The childcare scheme that the Education Minister recently announced will impact the life of 12,000 children. Do we extend the franchise to them because of that? Additionally, consideration must be given to the impact of any reduction in the voting age on the mental health and well-being of impressionable teenagers and to how likely they would be to make informed individual political choices, be unduly influenced by parents and teachers or be impacted by peer pressures. Regardless of our individual views about where the line is drawn on the issue —

— any politician who is worth their salt will listen to the developing views and voices of young people, whether or not they can vote.

693 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification