I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the motion agreed by the Assembly in November 2012 calling on the British Government to introduce legislation to change the voting age to 16; regrets that previous British Governments failed to introduce such legislation; further notes the manifesto commitment of the Labour Government to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections; believes that the voting age should be reduced to 16 for all elections and referendums; and calls on the British Government to introduce legislation to accommodate this change.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an Amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

It is time to extend voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds. Every day in the Chamber, we make decisions that affect the lives of children and young people, all without them having a direct role in playing their part in that change. Young people have been at the forefront of delivering real change in some of the biggest political developments of the past decade. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are not just citizens of the future; they are full and equal citizens now. They are the cornerstone of our communities, and they play an active and valuable role in our society. At 16, you can start work, you can make your own decisions on education and you pay tax and National Insurance, to name a few. The notion that they are not mature or able enough to play a role in the democratic process is nonsense.

In Scotland and Wales, 16- and 17-year-olds have the right to elect their MSPs and their Welsh Assembly Members. In the European Union, Austria, Germany and Malta have all extended voting rights to over-16s. That has meant a more engaged, more vocal and more diverse electorate. In the North and across Ireland, we deny that opportunity to our next generation of voters. When they can vote, 16- and 17-year-olds have higher rates of turnout than 18-to-24-year-olds. They have accessed more information from a wider variety of sources than any other age group, making them a more informed voting group. If you can vote at 16 and 17, you are more likely to vote in the future. Eighteen-year-olds who do not vote can become 50-year-olds who do not vote. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds who vote will continue to vote as they age.

Extending the right to vote would allow a seamless transition from learning about voting to putting it into practice. We have potentially already lost one generation. We cannot deny the next generation of voters, who have studied the democratic process, the right to use that knowledge in council and Assembly elections. That is a missed opportunity. It is only fair that their voices translate into political power. Sinn Féin has always advocated an inclusive, progressive society where everyone has the right to shape their future and where the voices of young people are not only heard but listened to.

Our vision for a new and united Ireland is built on equality, justice and inclusivity. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote ensures that we give a voice to those who have the biggest stake in our future. The decisions that we make today are the ones that they will inherit tomorrow. By empowering young people with a vote, we encourage a lifetime of political engagement. Our democracy will be richer for it, and our society will be fairer.

We must not continue to sideline the opinions of 16- and 17-year-olds. They must have a direct role in shaping their future. I say to the young people listening today, "Sinn Féin is on your side. You should have the right to shape the processes in this Chamber like anyone else". Let us ensure that the democratic process can be open to all. It is time to extend the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds. I ask Members to support the motion and the Amendment.

I beg to move the following Amendment:

Leave out all after "referendums;" and insert: "endorses the recommendation from the Institute of Public Policy Research 2023 report 'Out of Kilter', which calls for votes at 16 to be combined with high-quality and expansive civic education in schools to boost voter turnout and political engagement among young people; calls on the Minister of Education to consider this expanded civic education as part of the pending review of the Northern Ireland curriculum; and further calls on the British Government to introduce legislation to reduce the voting age for all elections and referendums to 16."

You have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

I feel that speaking on the motion is a bit of a full circle moment for me. As a youth worker in 2009, I came to the Building with groups of young people from Belfast YMCA's Youth in Government programme and then with young people from the Where is My Public Servant? programme to advocate and lobby for votes at 16. The only Member who is still standing that I interviewed at that time is Patsy McGlone, so fair play to him for his sticking power. Fifteen years later, I am honoured to stand in the Chamber to speak on behalf of the 16- and 17-year-olds who deserve to have a say in who represents them. Quite a few of them are sitting in the Gallery behind me, so thank you very much.

I will start by laying down a challenge to any MLA who is speaking on the motion today: please, please do not refer to young people as "the future". If you have that phrase in your speech, please delete it. All that does is disenfranchise young people from their place in society here and now. It tells them that they are good enough, just not right now. I want any young person who is listening to the motion and who is up in the Gallery today to hear one thing above all else: your contribution to your community is valued and worthwhile now.

As we consider the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16, it is important to acknowledge that, in the past, particularly in the debate on the issue, first, in November 2012, much of the debate around it was speculative. There simply were not enough examples around the world to guide us, but, over the last decade, that has changed significantly. We now have a wealth of evidence, particularly in Europe and South America and, closer to home, in Wales and Scotland, where 16- and 17-year-olds have been granted the right to vote in various elections. The experiences in those countries offer us really invaluable insights.

Empirical research shows that, by and large, the participation of young people has been really positive in respect of both their political engagement and their civic attitude and change to that. Importantly, there is no indication that lowering the voting age has any negative consequences; in fact, in many cases, it has sparked a new and vibrant discussion around politics, democracy and what it is to be a citizen. The sky did not fall in by allowing young people the chance to have their say. As a young person told me this morning, Scotland did not just create an army of rebellious teenagers overnight. More's the pity, I say.

The evidence that we have should encourage us to seriously consider extending the franchise. The potential benefits to political engagement and to our democratic system, particularly among younger generations, are hard to ignore. Before I get into the Amendment, I want to address some of the main arguments that we hear regularly against extending the vote to those who are 16 or 17, because I believe that they deserve careful scrutiny. I do not believe that they stand up to the evidence or the principles of democracy that we uphold.

First, some argue that 16- and 17-year-olds are not mature or informed enough to vote. Let us not underestimate our young people. It is so patronising to tell a young person that they are not mature enough or educated enough to understand the world of politics. The cohort of young people in this generation is the most politically engaged and connected generation ever. They have immediate access to their representatives through social media or email, unlike past generations, like mine, who had to wait until their school visited this Building or they saw an elected representative out in their community.

Young people today grow up in a world where information is more accessible than ever, and many are deeply aware of the issues that affect them, whether it is climate change, education, housing or the economy. At 16, they can leave school, start full-time work, pay taxes, join the military and even make critical life decisions such as getting married or consenting to medical treatment. If we trust them with those responsibilities, why should we deny them the right to have a say in who governs them?

Research from the countries that have already lowered the voting age shows that 16- and 17-year-olds are just as capable of making informed choices as older voters. In fact, studies show that young people who are engaged politically at an earlier age tend to carry that civic engagement into adulthood, which is what has been shown in Scotland. By giving them the vote, we nurture lifelong democratic participation. That is a habit that we should be encouraging not postponing.

Another argument is that young voters are more likely to be swayed by emotional appeals or lack of experience than older generations. If we are being honest, this place knows more than most about that in respect of our adult generation. The idea that more experience guarantees better decisions is unfounded. As a young person said this morning:

"Wisdom does not equate to age."

Initial scepticism about lowering the voting age was based on assumptions drawn from low political engagement of the slightly older 18-24 age bracket, leading to fears that younger teens are even less likely to be engaged. However, data from Austria, Germany, Argentina and Scotland shows a different picture. Studies reveal that there is often a higher turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds than 18- and 19-year-olds, partly due to the former's being in more stable environments, such as living at home and attending school. In the likes of Austria and Brazil, enfranchising young people at 16 has been shown to establish long-term voting habits.

This debate is not just about extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds and not just about fairness; it is about strengthening our democracy. By empowering young people, we ensure that our democratic institutions are truly representative, inclusive and forward-looking.

Leave out all after "referendums;" and insert: "endorses the recommendation from the Institute of Public Policy Research 2023 report 'Out of Kilter', which calls for votes at 16 to be combined with high-quality and expansive civic education in schools to boost voter turnout and political engagement among young people; calls on the Minister of Education to consider this expanded civic education as part of the pending review of the Northern Ireland curriculum; and further calls on the British Government to introduce legislation to reduce the voting age for all elections and referendums to 16."

I now want to address the amendment that we have tabled. The amendment builds on the motion, which rightly calls for the voting age to be lowered. However, we have to recognise the need for all young people to be equipped with the knowledge and understanding to fully engage in the process. While there will always be young people who are knowledgeable and engaged, we need to make sure that we deliver an equitable opportunity for understanding. The amendment endorses a key recommendation from the Institute for Public Policy Research's 2023 report, 'Out of Kilter', which highlights the importance of combining votes at 16 with high-quality civic education in all schools. It calls on the Minister of Education to consider:

"this expanded civic education as part of the pending review of the Northern Ireland curriculum".

By doing so, we would not only lower the voting age but ensure that young people are prepared to participate meaningfully in our democracy. While there will always be naysayers, this is the right thing to do.

The Minister of Education has advocated autonomy at school level, but I believe that there is a duty on his Department to create a consistent approach to nurturing the civic journey of this generation. Enfranchising all young people without equipping them with the tools to fully acknowledge their rights, responsibilities and the political system would be a missed opportunity. Civic education should go beyond the basics of how elections work. It has to foster critical thinking and understanding of the issues that affect society. In essence, our amendment strengthens the original motion by linking the right to vote at 16 with the educational tools needed to foster lifelong political engagement. I hope that Members will support it.

I will leave any Member who wants to vote against the motion with the views of some of the young people whom we met this morning from NUS-USI, the Secondary Students’ Union of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Youth Forum, Politics in Action, the Shared Island Youth Forum and One Young World. This is what voting at 16 means to them:

"We currently do not feel represented by local and national politics". "We are the people with lived experience of young people". "Young people in this generation are so clued-in, and it is not because we were taught it; it is because we went looking for it". "Proper political education is so important. Without voluntary organisations and the youth work sector, we would not know as much as we do now". "There is a moral argument in that, while we have a National Insurance number and can pay into the system, we do not have any say over systems that are crumbling around us". "Earlier voting will set us up for life". "We are the most politically engaged generation ever". "We need to nip the 'nobody ever listens to us anyway' vibes in the bud". "Let's focus on how we can make Northern Ireland liveable for us all".

I hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Hilary Benn, will be tuning into this debate online. I hope that he plans to progress the extension of the franchise, as he indicated recently to me and my colleague Kellie Armstrong. I will write to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ask that the Executive consider writing to Westminster to ask that those powers be devolved to Northern Ireland, because it is right that we make decisions for ourselves in the House. Hopefully, the one- and two-year-olds in 2012, when the Chamber last discussed the issue, will be able to, in the 2027 Assembly election, select who will sit in these seats.

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?

Will the Member take an Intervention?

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.

Members, today we will debate a matter that could, in a very positive way, copper-fasten our ambition and secure Northern Ireland's democracy for generations. The voices of our young people, particularly those aged 16 to 17, are growing louder. Our young people are more informed and passionate than they have ever been. Those young citizens are not only the leaders of tomorrow but active participants in today. They care about their future, and they care about our future. They care about climate change, mental health services, education and equality, and it is time to entrust them with the vote, just as we entrust them with so many other responsibilities in their life. In Scotland and Wales, 16- and 17-year-olds already enjoy the right to vote in national and local elections. With their higher voter turnout, they are proving that young people, when given the chance, engage seriously with the political process.

Will the Member give way?

Absolutely, if you keep it brief.

I thank the Member for giving way. This morning, I spoke with a young voter, who is a constituent of his in Lagan Valley. She expressed her disillusionment at not being able to vote in the Brexit referendum and how the outcome might have been different — we could all still happily be in the EU — had 16-year-olds been allowed to vote in it.

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you. On that point, we were all ill prepared for that vote, and look at how it turned out. The critical point about that is the education piece, which I am going to go on to, and I thank the Member for his Intervention.

In Scotland, studies have shown that voter participation among 16- and 17-year-olds exceeds that of 18- to 24-year-olds, largely because younger voters are still embedded in environments like school and in the family, which promotes socialisation and civic responsibility. Extending the vote to younger citizens is crucial to cultivating lifelong voting habits, ensuring a vibrant and enduring democracy.

Young people today are eager to be empowered. Granting them the right to vote at 16 must be supported by high-quality, universal and accurate education before they reach that age: that is from the voices and mouths of those young people. That foundation of education is essential, not only to encourage greater participation from this cohort in the democratic process but to ensure that they are equipped with the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to make those informed decisions. By fostering a deeper understanding of civic responsibility and political systems, we can ensure that young people wield the power of their democratic will with a level of insight and preparedness that surpasses many of the generations before them, including my own. Empowering youth through education is key to cultivating informed engagement and engaged citizens who will actually shape our future.

The idea that young people lack the maturity to vote is outdated and baseless. At 16, they can join the armed forces; they can pay taxes; they can even get married. Most concerning, perhaps, is the fact that, in Northern Ireland, from the age of 10, young people can be held criminally responsible. We entrust them with these enormous responsibilities that I have mentioned, yet we deny them a say in shaping the Laws that govern their lives. The argument against lowering the voting age falls apart when we consider the contradiction that those who resist votes at 16 often shy away from, which is to address the glaring imbalance with the criminal age of responsibility.

Politics in Action and the Northern Ireland Youth Forum, in particular, are at the forefront of the movement for votes from 16, advocating passionately for the rights of their young people. Those organisations have highlighted the fact that young people are already politically aware, engaged and capable of making informed decisions. They are leading campaigns that speak truth to power and are demanding that Northern Ireland catches up with its neighbours. We must not stifle that energy nor waste the opportunity. The time has come to give young people the democratic voice that they deserve. Let us lower the voting age to 16 and, in doing so, build a fairer and more responsible and representative society for all.

I put on record our strong support for lowering the voting age to 16, and I thank the proposers of the motion and the Amendment.

To me, from the outset, the biggest reason for lowering the voting age is our young people themselves. Our next generation has ambition in spades for themselves and for Northern Ireland. They care deeply about the world around them and about the biggest social, economic and justice issues of the day. On all progressive causes, they are all too often four or five steps ahead of where our politicians of the day land. Let us not forget that these young people will be forced to live with the consequences of today's decisions and have often known little else but instability in our politics and skyrocketing costs of housing, transport and basic essentials.

All those challenges are in the context of an uncertain future, both for this place and for the planet. I do not blame young people who look at how long it can take for Northern Ireland to get its act together about virtually everything and think that politics is not for them. Fortunately, that is not how this generation has responded. There are so many young people in this generation who, instead of stepping back from politics, have stepped up and stepped into politics. They have found campaigns on everything, from youth mental health to poverty. They organise in their communities and in their schools. They march, they protest and they mobilise for their own rights and for the rights of their peers. They care about the future and they care about each other.

Those young people can work, pay tax, serve in our armed forces and get married. Those young people have a right to have a say in the future that we are trying to create for them. They have a right to help shape that future through voting. I cannot help but think that perhaps, if they were able to vote, our politics might take more notice of them and their needs. Perhaps we would have taken action on the climate crisis more quickly. Perhaps we would have legislated for abortion rights or marriage equality in the Chamber instead of leaving it to London. Perhaps we would show more urgency in tackling the housing crisis, including how it affects renters.

For anyone who opposes this step, it is worth looking back at the debate when the age was lowered from 21 to 18. The same moral, illogical panic that comes from some very conservative quarters now came from the same quarters back then. No one would argue that the age should be raised or that the reduction should not have taken place. Some say that 16 is simply too young, but there is no one age, as the expert panel in Wales found, at which rights are totally conferred. Therefore, why not let those capable, talented, motivated young people vote? We need more of them to get involved, and we have no time to waste.

In the interests of all those young people, today's motion should actually go further. It is all very well to ask the current Government to introduce legislation —.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, certainly.

Does the Member agree that many 16- and 17-year-olds are frustrated by the lack of progress? While there are good intentions behind the motion, it simply calls on the British Government to do something. Why are we not mandating our Executive and First Minister and deputy First Minister to act? As an Assembly, why are we not telling the Executive that they must seek the powers to make the change, instead of simply leaving it, once again, as a debate that might lie on the table for another eight years?

I totally agree with the Member. We need to get the job done, and we need to get it done closer to home. We need to join the other devolved nations — Scotland and Wales — that have lowered the voting age.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister should seek the devolution of the required powers to introduce the legislation. Of course, we want this right for every young person in the UK, and I hope that the Prime Minister lives up to his commitment to introduce the right to vote for 16- and 17-year-olds. If he does, our MPs in Westminster will be first in line to vote for it, but we need to be able to make the decision here in our devolved Assembly for the young people here. Lowering the age from 18 to 16 is the next staging post on our journey to expand the electorate and ensure that everyone has a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Today, let us act in the interests of the 45,000 young people aged 16 and 17 in Northern Ireland by giving them the say that they deserve in their society and in democracy.

I support the motion and the Amendment. I take on board the point that the Member for North Antrim made when she proposed the amendment. She said that we should not refer to children as "the future", and I totally understand what she was saying. However, I find it impossible to disagree with Whitney Houston. I believe that "children are our future", but it is what you infer from that. It is not about saying to children that the future will be theirs at some stage and that they should just wait until that time. Instead, it is about recognising that our young people should have a say in what their future looks like, and that gets to the heart of what the debate is about.

We in Sinn Féin believe that we should extend voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds because they work, pay taxes and contribute to the system, and, therefore, they should have a say in how we are governed. This is fundamental to many of the debates in the Chamber about equality, inclusion and rights: in order for us to recognise people's views, they need an opportunity to have their say. We cannot govern for people and take on board their particular perspectives if they are not included in the democratic process. For that reason, 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to vote.

We know that teenagers now face pressures that most of us could not begin to imagine. I will counter that by saying that I might be closer than some in the Chamber to understanding their particular pressures. Look at, among other things, social media, the prevalence of bullying, peer pressure and the rise of drug and alcohol abuse in our communities.

We do not know how to tackle those pressures, and we need the views of our young people when we are trying to do so. For that reason, they should be included in the electoral process.

In other examples around the world, we have see how, when progressive voices are included at the table, we have more progressive politics and better and more informed solutions to problems that we face. That is another reason that our 16- and 17-year-olds should be granted the right to vote. They have an important contribution to make to society, and that should be reflected in our electoral system.

I agree with those who have spoken in favour of extending voting rights. Obviously, Sinn Féin, coming, as we do, from a place in the world where, at one stage, the right to vote was not even granted to every 18-year old, a right that a civil rights campaign eventually saw extended, would like to see more people involved in our democratic process and the franchise being extended. I urge Members to support the motion.

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 —

The Member's time is up.

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

As this is Michelle Guy's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption. However, if you choose to express views that provoke an interruption, you are likely to forfeit that protection. I call Michelle Guy.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am genuinely honoured to stand here as the new MLA for Lagan Valley. I extend my sincere congratulations and thanks to the formidable Sorcha Eastwood MP, who occupied the seat before me. Sorcha, you leave big shoes and brightly coloured handbags to fill, but as with you and our Lagan Valley colleague, David Honeyford, our cause is simple: to make this place the best version of itself now for everyone who lives here.

I also extend my thanks to our amazing councillors and members of the Lagan Valley association for encouraging me to go for this opportunity and for their help and support since my selection. You really are a special group, and I will do all that I can to be worthy of the faith that you have shown in me.

I love the motion. I love its objective and what, evidence tells us, will be its outworking: more engaged, civically aware and active young citizens who will contribute more because voting gives them a greater stake in our society. If it is delivered — rather, when it is delivered — it will be a hugely significant change that will be transformative for our democracy locally. Extending the franchise to a new cohort is a big deal, and history tells us that it is something that too many people were denied in the past for very dark reasons. The movement for votes at 16 does not fall into that bracket. Arguably, resistance to the move can be categorised as ignorant, maybe patronising and certainly ill informed, given the evidence base that it is a positive move for democracy. To my knowledge, no country that has extended the franchise in this way has since reneged on it.

As a group, our young people are anything but ill informed, and they are certainly not passive citizens. They volunteer in our communities, participate in our workforce and are carers. They increasingly inform and help to co-design policies that impact on them, but they have no right to express their verdict democratically on those same policy outcomes in the way that the rest of us can by voting in elections.

This being my maiden speech, it feels appropriate to mention my own two young people. My Dan is only 13, so I reckon that he is more concerned with FIFA packs and his under-14 championship final this Friday. Good luck, boys. I would, however, let Caitlin vote tomorrow. This is the girl who was 10 at the last US elections and, on results night, came down the stairs, even though she was quite tired and should have been sleeping, to ask whether there was any word on Pennsylvania.

[Laughter.]

She is informed and engaged, and, when she turns 16 in a couple of years' time, she has the right to express herself democratically.

I sit on the Education Committee, and our Amendment calls for:

"high-quality and expansive civic education" alongside the introduction of votes at 16. It is important to emphasise that that recommendation is not about inserting some form of conditionality on extending the right to vote; rather, it would be a complementary measure. Not only is it recommended in the 2023 Out of Kilter report but our young people tell us that provision in that space is inadequate.

A Secondary Students' Union report in 2023, 'Let Us Learn', states that nearly 80% of students said no when asked whether they had been taught about democracy and active participation in learning for life and work (LLW). Furthermore, our amendment calls expressly for high-quality provision, and that is important. The all-party parliamentary group on Votes at 16 report in 2019 stated that civic education was important but not all forms of civic education worked equally well and that ill-conceived measures may be counterproductive.

I want to bookend the speech by thanking my family. It was a wee bit too risky to do that earlier in case I got emotional. To Chris, the kids, my parents, sisters and close friends, who know that I am doing this, in their words, for the right reasons and who have supported me through so much this year in particular, I say, "Thank you, and I love you".

[Interruption.]

Oops, sorry. That was dramatic at the end.

[Laughter.]

I start by congratulating the new Member on her maiden speech. It is certainly not easy to rise after that, but I will do my best.

I oppose the motion for three simple reasons. First, in setting the voting age at 18, the UK is very much in line with international practice. If you look at the situation across the democratic world, you see that the average voting age is 18·03 years. While there are 16-year-olds in the workplace, the vast Majority are still in education or vocational training until the age of 18. It is important to remember that, when it comes to issues such as signing a legally binding contract, one cannot do so until one is 18. Let us remember that you need to be 18 to buy alcohol, 18 to buy cigarettes and 18 to buy a knife, but those who tabled the motion want a 16-year-old to be able to vote.

Secondly, it would be remiss of me not to note the irony of the motion's origin. Sinn Féin is in no position to lecture anyone on democracy. On its Benches, albeit from time to time, sits the Old Bailey bomber, Gerry Kelly. Let us not forget today that that bombing resulted in Frederick Milton dying from a heart attack and 150-plus being injured. Let us ask ourselves why that attack was carried out: because, on the same day, a border poll was held in Northern Ireland, and Mr Kelly knew that he would not like the outcome of that poll. On that same day, a young soldier, 21-year-old John Green, was shot by the IRA while guarding St Joseph's Primary School on the lower Falls. Why was he guarding the school? Because it was being used as a polling station. Yet, Sinn Féin, in the motion, wants to lecture us on democracy.

Those are not the only points about the motion that I find ironic, which brings me to my final reason. Those who will trip through the Lobbies in support of the motion in a few moments' time are also the most passionate advocates of the protocol, an arrangement that means that, when it comes to 300 areas of law — note that I said "300 areas of law" and not "300 Laws" — no one in Northern Ireland, regardless of their age, has any vote on them. That is a democratic obscenity, yet those who champion votes for 16-year-olds loudest are silent when it comes to being ruled by people whom no one in Northern Ireland voted for.

We are just over a month away from the largest disenfranchisement operation of modern times and the facilitating of the first majoritarian vote in Stormont in over 50 years. It will also be the most controversial majoritarian vote in Northern Ireland's 103-year history, a vote to disenfranchise 1·9 million people in 300 areas of law. A vote resigning to the idea that the laws made —

Let us get back to voting for 16-year-olds, Mr Gaston, please.

Yes, Mr Speaker. If you give me time, I am just getting back to that.

It will be a vote resigning us to the idea that the Laws made in those areas will be made for us by the Republic of Ireland and 26 other states and not the UK or Northern Ireland's MLAs who sit in the House; a vote that unbundles the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's single market for goods in favour of an all-Ireland single market for goods; and a vote that violates the cross-community consent and democratic provisions of the Belfast Agreement as international law, treating the people of Northern Ireland with complete contempt. Do not argue that the protocol is just and then lecture us on votes for 16-year-olds. It just does not wash. The real democratic deficit in this part of the UK is the failure to honour the biggest democratic mandate in British history: the mandate to leave the EU.

Currently, young people's needs and interests are being left out of most political decisions made here, and we have a general problem, right across our society, with most categories and communities of people switching off from official politics and, thus, from voting. In many ways, when you hear some speeches and read some legislation and see how it is worded and purposefully made complex, that is no surprise.

However, it is worth saying that politics is not just about what happens in this place or Westminster. Politics is all around us, and young people are engaged in it every single day. They are involved in campaigns every single day. Look at the campaigns for Palestine. Young people have dominated those on our streets across these islands. They protested against education maintenance allowance (EMA) cuts. Disgracefully, EMA has not been increased in 20 years; I still cannot over that mental fact. Young people are political, and the current barrier should be lifted so that young people are allowed to vote.

It is worth mentioning that social inequality obviously affects voter turnout, and those in deprived communities, generally speaking, are less likely to vote. That is understandable when you see what Governments tend to prioritise — what they do and do not do. However, that is not true for the 16- and 17-year-olds who voted in the 2021 Scottish local elections, where class, which is a determining factor for most things in life, was not a factor for those under the age of 18 who voted. That only became a factor after the age of 18 and among people in their 20s. I remember, during the campaign around the Scottish independence referendum, that some of the best voices — generally for independence — in the debate were young people who were passionate and articulate, so I do not buy the idea that young people are not interested, are not political or are too stupid or naive, as some people suggest.

It is no surprise that the DUP does not want the voting age to be lowered, because that party does not want a greater cohort of people to cast their verdict on its disastrous policies, its support for the Tories, its support for banning puberty blockers, its objections to relationships and sexuality education (RSE) and its attitude towards the LGBTQ+ community and migrants — the list goes on and on and on.

Despite the fears of Conservatives here and in Britain, not everyone aged 16, 17 and 18 is a radical socialist — yet — but they certainly tend to have better positions on political questions than parties here and those that have been in government in Westminster, including on climate change and Palestine. The list goes on. Therefore, they absolutely should be allowed to vote.

I will paraphrase Frederick Douglass: power concedes nothing without a fight. Working-class people had to fight for the right to vote through a Chartist movement in Britain and other campaigns across the world. The suffragette movement had to fight to get votes for women, and that was a fight and a struggle. The civil rights movement here, as has been suggested, and in the US had to fight to get votes for people who were discriminated against and were not allowed to vote. Young people should not be forced to fight in the same way, but the same principle applies. Added to the votes at 16 motion and the point about the Secretary of State, the fact that migrants, asylum seekers and refugees cannot vote in our society but live here and contribute here is also a disgrace, and I call on the Secretary of State to make legislation quickly to resolve that matter as well.

I pay tribute to everybody who has campaigned to highlight the worthy Votes at 16 cause. Politics in Action, the Northern Ireland Youth Forum and the National Union of Students - Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI) — a former employer — support the motion, and my message to those young people is to keep up the fight and keep campaigning. Like those people in the past who were denied the right to vote, I think that you can get the right to vote as well.

I call Kellie Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on the Amendment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion on votes at 16. I used my first Member's statement during this term of the Assembly in advance of the International Day of Democracy to call for votes at 16. It is a long-standing policy of Alliance and other parties in this House that those changes should take effect. However, it is accepted that, according to paragraph 12 of schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Assembly has no power to introduce that change, so it needs to happen on the Floor of Westminster. I think that we will say very clearly today to the Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, that this Assembly does want that change to take effect. We want to be the same as Scotland and Wales, and we want our 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to vote. It would be an absolute privilege for many people who will stand in the 2027 elections if 16- and 17-year-olds were able to do that for the first time.

I am not surprised that some Members have reiterated their Opposition to the motion. For clarity, why was the age of 16 chosen as the starting age for National Insurance? We have 16-year-olds who pay National Insurance and have a National Insurance card, yet, for some, they are not good enough to vote. I believe that 16- and 17-year-olds in Northern Ireland are every bit as good, intelligent, progressive and politically intelligent as those who live in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, 16- and 17-year olds have been able to vote for 10 years. Are we not part of the devolved nations? Why are our 16- and 17-year-olds treated differently? When we have the opportunity to ask for votes at 16, we should take it. Together, we should push the Secretary of State to move that forward.

I appreciate the Member's giving way. Perhaps she has noticed throughout the debate, as I have, that those arguing against the motion and the Amendment have cited all the dangerous things that people can do when they come of age at 18, but including more people in the democratic process is not dangerous or something that anybody should fear.

The Member has an extra minute.

Absolutely. We all know that each party in the House has a youth wing. I find it disingenuous for Members to say to someone who joined a political party at a young age, and who may hold membership of that party, that they are just a political "anorak" and are not equipped to know anything about politics.

The concerns about having education that provides support for young people is completely unfounded. At Key Stage 3, there is learning for life and work. We can include voting as part of the local and global citizenship topic. That is easy enough to do. It will tell people how to vote, when votes happen, how the process works and all that. For goodness' sake, it will even help them learn how the counts are worked out. High-quality and expansive civic education in schools will provide that. It will also manage political campaigning. Politicians are only invited into schools; we do not go and campaign in them. That is fair. We can create a system that educates young people and helps them decide for themselves who they back and want to vote for. I am disappointed that the Minister of Education left the debate — I am sure that he has other business to do — as there are a lot of young people here who would have loved to hear his reaction to the idea for a review of the national curriculum to include something like politics within learning for life and work, but we will not hear that today.

Our young people are excellent. They are not just political anoraks. They want to know about the globe. They want to know how they can improve life across the world, across this island, across the UK and across Northern Ireland, so why are we preventing them from doing so? Many of them have said that they do not feel represented by government. We have the Northern Ireland Youth Assembly, but do we have its Members coming to the Chamber with any motions? No. They are barred from doing so. We could give those intelligent young people, whom we celebrate, the right to vote. Why do we celebrate their GCSEs and A levels and say that they are doing so wonderfully well but tell them that they are not good enough to vote? That is wrong.

Voting earlier means that people will go on to vote longer in life. All of us in this place should want that. Rather than play TUV bingo, we should talk up the opportunity to have more voters. After all, the jobs of each of us depend on them. The more people who vote, the better Northern Ireland can be. In fact, this morning, I heard that, when the franchise changes, society improves through more representation. Unless Members think that our young people are not good enough and are not as good as Scottish and Welsh young people, why would they vote against the motion? I appreciate that it is their party policy, as the DUP's Brian Kingston MLA said, but, guys, you are on the wrong side of history. You have been on the wrong side of history so often. It is time to recognise that, long ago, people were able to vote only at 21, but the age was changed to 18. At this stage, it is right that, in Northern Ireland, our intelligent, productive and effective young people can vote from the age of 16.

I call Pádraig Delargy to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

I thank all those who contributed to the debate, during which several key themes were raised. The first was access to democracy, which Robbie Butler touched on initially. One area of broad consensus throughout the debate was that this is not just about the future but about now. It is about empowering young people now and ensuring that they have a voice. We are all aware — I am very aware in my role as Sinn Féin spokesperson for further and higher education — of the fact that many young people who are in apprenticeships and work, and thus paying National Insurance, face the consequences of policies that are made here, yet they have no right to vote. That is fundamentally wrong.

The second broad area of discussion was on the higher rates of young people utilising their vote. Both Danny and Sian touched on that. We looked at Scotland and other international examples. There are many examples that we could look at, but that of Scotland is a particularly interesting one, because it is in a situation not dissimilar to ours. This is about increasing civic engagement and giving young people, in every forum across society, a voice and ensuring that that voice is heard. Sinéad and Michelle touched on the remarkable political activism that there is.

Fundamental to the debate is the fact that we are not speaking to young people but with them and ensuring that they can speak at the ballot box and that their voices are heard not just through voting but in the Chamber. We would all like to see a more diverse Chamber and the opportunity to have a more diverse politics for women, young people and many other groups across society. I joined the Assembly as an MLA at the age of 25, but I had been a political activist for 10 years prior to that. Emma Sheerin and I both entered politics through Ógra Shinn Féin and have both been politically aware from a young age, and I am sure that many in the Chamber have had a similar experience. I am proud that Sinn Féin is leading the way. I am proud that we are a party that does not just talk about young people leading but has young leaders up and down the country and right across Ireland. That is something of which to be very proud. I know that many other parties do the same, and I hope to see every party in the Chamber doing so in future. From looking up at the Gallery, I can see the young people who have come here today. Members can look at the issues that are prevalent in their Constituency and see that young people take the lead on all of them. The campaigns for change, progress and inclusivity are all led by young people, and that is very positive.

We will support the Amendment. It is important that the role of the Department of Education was noted in the text of the amendment, and I share Ms Armstrong's surprise and disappointment that the Education Minister is not here, because there was a lot of discussion about the role of schools in the debate. As a former teacher, I hope that the role of education staff is not being discredited, because their role is vital. Our schools have an important role to play in developing our young people holistically, in every sense of their education. It is therefore important that the Department of Education be represented at the table.

The language that we use is important as well. We have to be conscious of the need to ensure that education staff are not discredited in anything that we say to or about schools or about young people.

To summarise —.

Will the Member give way?

No. I do not have time.

I will summarise by saying that this is not a niche or fringe topic. As my colleague Emma said, it is a fundamental human right. It is about an entitlement for young people and about giving them a voice and the opportunity to be heard. There are challenges that are specific to this generation. Those challenges are unique, and the best way in which to hear about them is directly through the voices of those who are impacted on: young people.

I will now set out our party position. Sinn Féin is very clear that it is time to lower the voting age in the North from 18 to 16. We are very clear about that and are proud to advocate an inclusive and progressive politics, where everyone has the right to shape the future. I encourage all Members to support the motion.

I remind the Member that, when he tabled the motion, he did not request a ministerial response. That is why there is no Minister here, be it the Education Minister or another Minister. I just point out to him why that is the case.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the motion agreed by the Assembly, in November 2012, calling on the British Government to introduce legislation to change the voting age to 16; regrets that previous British Governments failed to introduce such legislation; further notes the manifesto commitment of the Labour Government to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections; believes that the voting age should be reduced to 16 for all elections and referendums; endorses the recommendation from the Institute of Public Policy Research 2023 report 'Out of Kilter', which calls for votes at 16 to be combined with high-quality and expansive civic education in schools to boost voter turnout and political engagement among young people; calls on the Minister of Education to consider this expanded civic education as part of the pending review of the Northern Ireland curriculum; and further calls on the British Government to introduce legislation to reduce the voting age for all elections and referendums to 16.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)