 Jasle Scottish Government, on the comments on the recent House of Lords Committee report immigration security عن extension the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the Gos election in 2016. The Scottish Government does not accept the views expressed in the House of Lords rhanfyrdd ni allu gyda'r drefnod drosol, i grei'r cyfrifwyr ac yn drafod gyda'r ddisgyn dificultad yn cael ei ffordd drosol. Yn gyflawn i ddiffrwyr dan ystafell yn gyllideb ar gyfer ddiffrwyr ac yn cyfrifwyr i ddisgynico'r revenues ddiweddydd i gydag iawn i gyrsbyddiaethu gyda'r ddisgyn a chyfin iawn i gartain? Mae'r ddigwethaf yn gweithio dydig yn gallu amlwgol yn gweithio i ddigwethaf yn gweithreffendum o'r gydag iawn i gael gliwiel. The Scottish Government's proposal to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in Scottish Parliament and local authority elections will be the subject of a bill that will be scrutinised in detail by this Parliament. Many of the points in the report will be considered as part of that process and need not affect consideration of the order. The Deputy First Minister's answer is that the Deputy First Minister aware that devolution for the powers committee has now met personally with over 150 high school pupils from across Scotland and surveyed over 1,000 online, with a vast majority supporting the extension of voting rights for 16 for elections in Scotland. Does he agree that, before coming to his conclusion on voting rights for 16 and 17-year-olds, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, however remarkable the idea might be to them, should have engaged in a real and meaningful discussion with young people about this important matter? I think that that would have been helpful. The exercise that this Parliament legislated for in the referendum, which enabled young people to have 16 and 17-year-olds to participate in the election, I think is viewed across the board as one of the most successful elements of democratic participation that we have seen in many years in Scotland and one of the key democratic triumphs of the referendum campaign. Again, any of us who witnessed the engagement and the enthusiasm of young people to exercise their democratic rights saw the value and the impact that they had on the process. Crucially, we all saw that young people were able to exercise their views and their contribution in a substantive way in the referendum process. Therefore, the concerns and views expressed by the House of Lords Committee report are, in my view, unfounded in that respect. To the point that Mr Crawford makes about the extensive engagement that the Devolution of Further Powers Committee has undertaken, in a sense, opens up the awareness and scrutiny of this important area of activity. I am glad that it has had such a positive response for the committee. Will the First Minister further agree with me that it would be utterly astonishing and deeply regrettable if, on Thursday, the House of Lords, the unelected House of Lords, failed to agree to pass the draft order, particularly given that the House of Commons agreed without a vote on 2 February and that all parties represented in this Parliament support the proposal to extend a franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds votes in this Parliament? I think that there is something wholly absurd about an unelected House of Parliament trying to exercise some constraint on the willingness of two democratically elected institutions—the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament—who wish to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds within our society. It would also be equally absurd if a group of young people who were so able to exercise their democratic responsibilities so effectively and so fully in the referendum last September were, if their cohort were to be denied the opportunity to participate in the 2016 Scottish Parliament in 2017 local authority elections. I think that for many young people it would be very strange that they were able to participate in the referendum but they would not be able to participate in the forthcoming United Kingdom general election, but that is an issue that I democratically accept is for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to determine. What would be absurd is if two democratically elected parliaments in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament were to have their wealth watered on this matter. I hope that the House of Lords takes the opportunity on Thursday to support the order. Jackie Beattie Although we would always note the concerns of the House of Lords constitution committee, it certainly does not bear out our experience in the referendum and I associate myself with the cabinet secretary's remarks about the participation of young people. It is important to recognise that votes for 16 to 18-year-olds were passed unanimously by the House of Commons. Labour is absolutely committed to extending the franchise, as are many others in this chamber, but I wonder whether the cabinet secretary would also agree with our proposals to abolish the House of Lords, replacing it with a senatorate of nations and regions, giving Scotland a stronger voice in the United Kingdom. The First Minister I always endeavour to find points of agreement with Jackie Baillie and on some of that she and I are as one. I very much agree with her on the point in relation to the section 30 order. I appreciate the support of the Labour Party disorder within Parliament and notwithstanding the legitimate scrutiny that will be exercised in the bill when it comes forward, which is entirely the proper preserve of the Labour Party to exercise that. In relation to the House of Lords, Jackie Baillie will be familiar with the fact that I am not a fan of the House of Lords. I think that we would manage without the House of Lords really quite well. Obviously, the questions about the future constitutional structures, Jackie Baillie and I will not have agreement on that, since I, despite the disappointment of the referendum result in September, remain committed to a unicameral Scottish Parliament managing the democratic affairs of an independent country. Jackie Baillie Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is an unexpected opportunity to ask a further question, but I ask the cabinet secretary specifically in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds whether some of the efforts that went into increasing the registration for the referendum will be replicated in terms of the Scottish Parliament elections. I think that there was much that we could learn from the good practice that was extended across Scotland. The First Minister I think that that is a very valid point. What was clear during the referendum process was that young people had the opportunity to understand about the issues that were involved in the referendum from my personal experience. I saw those issues being taken forward very seriously by young people with a tremendous amount of engagement. I watched one particular major debate during the referendum campaign in which the now First Minister was involved with young people in the hydro. All I can say about it is that I am glad that I was not on the panel, because it looked like a very, well, courteous but demanding environment to participate. Any observer of that process would see that the young people in Scotland had done the country proud by the way in which they had contributed to that debate. We have to accept that voting by 16 and 17-year-olds is a new part of our democratic process. Therefore, we have to make sure that young people are properly and dispassionately equipped for that process. The Government will consider seriously how those issues are taken forward. Of course, that is a material point that Jackie Baillie will be freed advanced during the consideration of the bill that follows the passage of section 30 order. I wonder whether the Deputy First Minister can confirm that it is important that the House of Lords does not stick its order in at this point, because any delay in bringing forward that order will seriously impact on our ability to enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds for the next tolerate election. Mr Don makes absolutely correct point. Time is literally off the essence on this issue. The order has to be approved by the Privy Council before the Westminster Parliament rises for the United Kingdom election. The Privy Council meeting is, if my memory says me right, on 19 March. If it does not reach that meeting of the Privy Council, then the order cannot come into force. Therefore, the ability of this Parliament to properly legislate for the exercise of those functions and to then give adequate time for the necessary electoral registration issues to follow on from that, which are not straightforward arrangements. They need to be done carefully and effectively. That opportunity will be lost. Mr Don makes absolutely correct point that there is next to no time for the House of Lords to do anything other than to respect the democratic will of this Parliament and of the House of Commons. Alex Johnson, I speak as one of the few members of the chamber who voted against the provision for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum, but by virtue of the experience of that referendum has changed his position on extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Will the cabinet secretary agree with me that, in expressing that unity, that should send a clear message to anyone who is concerned about the process to recognise that there is no unanimity on the subject of granting the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in future Scottish elections and that, while it is right to ask questions, it is wrong to stand in the way of that unanimous process? It is always a delight to see Mr Johnson changing his mind about something. I just wonder what else we might, with our powers of persuasion, get him to change his mind about in future issues. We will keep on. Now that we know that Mr Johnson has some room in his mind to consider alternative propositions, we will try ever harder to persuade him of the merits of them, I do welcome his contribution because I do, in all seriousness, I think it is welcome that the Conservative Party who had the reservations about this issue have taken a different view based on the evidence and the experience, and I compliment the Conservative Party for doing that. That adds to the weight of my argument that Parliament is of one on this question across all political perspectives. As I said in my answer to Jackie Baillie, there will be a piece of legislation that will have to come through this Parliament to put in place those arrangements. At that time, there will be ample opportunity for all manner of specific issues to be considered, and the Government will, of course, allocate the necessary time to make sure that that is the case. To get to that point, the order must be cleared of the Privy Council before the Westminster Parliament rises for the right of kingdom election, and I hope that the contribution that Mr Johnson has made will help to encourage that process this Thursday. Thank you. That ends topical question time. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 12381, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the legal writings, counterparts and delivery of Scotland Bill.