 The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 1-2-2-2 in the name of Patrick Harvie on young voters and school debates. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would also invite those members and indeed members of the public who are leaving the gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible. Please, I now call on Patrick Harvie to open the debate. Mr Harvie, you have seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the chance to bring this motion for debate to the chamber and I'm grateful to those members who've added their names in support. What I'm hoping to do is have a debate where I'm sure members will recall, hopefully with excitement and passion, some of the experiences that we had during the referendum campaign and the positive atmosphere of engagement and inclusive debate that took place in schools. What I'm hoping we avoid is for people to say how great it was that their side won in their local school because there are some arguments about the way that we engage with young voters in schools which should unite us all, whichever side of the referendum debate individual members or indeed campaigners in their local communities were on. Is there some historic concern that I think all of us would share about low voter turnout among young people in particular? That's not just a problem of the short term, it's a problem which compounds itself as each young generation comes out with more and more young people who don't see voting as a normal thing to do and that low voter turnout feeds through the generations and becomes an ever more serious problem. I think it's important to recognise that not turning out to vote is not the same as apathy. A great many people, including young people who may not have been voting in elections for years, are still politically engaged and channel their political interests and energies in different directions. If they started turning out to vote but ended up losing their political interests in other areas, I wouldn't necessarily see that as progress. I want to encourage people to vote as well as being active politically engaged citizens in every aspect of their lives, but we do have an opportunity to turn around that problem of low voter turnout amongst young people by seeing the chance of voter participation, citizenship education, political engagement in schools and normalising the voting process, so that year after year after year we're turning out from schools cohorts of young people for whom voting is a normal thing to do instead of a geek thing to do, because the problem has been that significant for a very long time. If we can do that, we'll not only have made sure that those young people see ways to get involved in politics, see a reason to get involved in politics and to have their views expressed in the political sphere, but we'll also hopefully turn around that dynamic and start to see turnout across the board rise year after year after year as those young people carry on voting, because we know statistically, not just in this country from around the world, there's good evidence to show that if you vote the first time you're entitled to, most people keep on voting, most people keep on engaging with politics, and if you don't vote the first time you're entitled to, a great many people are well into their thirties or older before they start voting, if ever at all, so this is a long-term dynamic that we need to turn around. There was broad support, not unanimous support, but broad support for reducing the voting age to 16 for the referendum. There were also concerns that were raised, legitimate concerns, around how to ensure that that engagement could be done in a neutral and balanced way, how to avoid schools becoming places where campaign activity took place at an inappropriate level and what the boundaries were. Some of those concerns are legitimate concerns even amongst those who supported reducing the voting age to 16. How well did we deal with those concerns? How well did we do this neutral, balanced, inclusive voter education and engagement within schools? In many places it was terrific, in many places it was everything that I would have wished it to be, and I took part in many debates, not just in Glasgow but around the country, where young people were having the chance to give campaigners on both sides, politicians on both sides, a grilling, put difficult questions to us and engage themselves, tell us what they thought the priorities should be and to have the chance to debate, not just whether they were voting yes or no, but what kind of country they wanted to live in. That sense that the first vote that they were going to cast was on a defining question for their society, that was itself engaging. In many places it was terrific, but not everywhere. I think that we need to recognise that it was a bit patchy. There were certainly some local authorities that specifically did not encourage schools to undertake those debates or set down rules about how they would take place, whether the two campaigns would be allowed to participate or not. The rules were different in different local authorities. Some places led entirely up to individual headteachers, so the level of participation and engagement that young people were exposed to would vary from school to school. Some had different rules about whether campaign debates were permissible during the so-called perda period or not. Different rules were being applied in different ways in different parts of the country. There is a real opportunity that we have to learn from the best of what was done during the referendum campaign in preparation for the next election, because there is now broad support for reducing the age of voting to 16 for elections as well. It will be more complicated to ensure political balance when you are looking at a multi-party election, as opposed to a yes or no referendum. It will be more complex. There will still be concerns about how to ensure neutrality and balance, how to ensure inclusivity, how to deal with the reality that we are not just talking about citizenship education, but citizens who are already active participants in the political process, and how to deal with the fact that schools do not just have a cohort of pupils in front of them, they have a cohort of young voters, some of whom will be campaigners, some of whom will be activists, some of whom will be party members from one part of the political spectrum or another. That is something that we should relish, that is something that we should see as a positive opportunity, not just as a problem. There will be concerns about those things. Those concerns should be addressed in a positive way, rather than being used as an excuse to close down debate or to close down the opportunities that are in front of us. We now have broad support for the principle that votes at 16 will be the norm for Scottish Parliament elections in the near future. My hope is that that happens for all elections throughout our society. Let's take the opportunity to use that to drive up voter turnout, to drive up political participation among young people, which will stay with them as they grow older. If we learn from the best of what was achieved over the course of last year, we will manage that. If we end up seeing the situation remaining patchy, we will have lost that really terrific opportunity. Those things do not come around very often, the chance to really change the dynamic of our political process and make sure that young people see it as something that they have a right to engage in and a positive reason to engage in, so I do hope that members will agree that we can learn from the best of what was achieved last year during the referendum campaign. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, and now I call on Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Mark Griffin. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My hearty congratulations to Patrick Harvey for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. He said that he wants a bit of excitement and passion, so let me just start with some. I was a rather sickly young kid, so I read a lot of books because I was at home a lot of the time. One of the early books that I read, the first political book that I read, was a biography of Lloyd George when it was about seven. I find it fascinating because it had excitement and passion. The passion was that his mistress was Francis Stevenson at age seven. I did not quite understand what that meant, but it was certainly something that he would do with passion and it was interesting. In those days, of course, the press were less interested in the private lives of politicians and he conducted an affair with Francis Stevenson that extended over 45 years and eventually married her just before he died after his wife had died. The first election that I participated in was the 1961 East Fife by-election, when Sir John Gilmour won the seat for the Tories. I was out campaigning for the Liberals and, as a result, a few months later joined the SNP in the Duncan Institute in Cooper, where 25 of us—15, 16 and 17-year-olds—joined our first political party. Getting the youngsters engaged is not new. There is a bit of a cycle to it. Hopefully, however, we are in an upward cycle that continues. Getting involved in public life can happen at a very early age. Mary Queen of Scots was eight days old when she became queen when James IV, her father, died after she was born in anithgal palace, but her engagement with politics was probably pretty minimal. The motion that is before us has a lot of interesting things—consensus for 16 and 17-year-olds. The online survey that is being done of young people shows that 8.5 per cent are opposed to it. Only 8.5 per cent. We can now say without risk of much contradiction that giving our youngsters the vote is a pretty much general thing, a settled will. We are looking again at the survey how to register, because it is the very first time that we are registering people of this age. There were some special issues around data protection and so on, so forth. 50 per cent to people according to that survey and good information at the schools. I think that the schools were a very important part of the campaign in ensuring that people were informed. There was variability in the engagement of schools. To some extent, the campaigns nationally had shortcomings on both sides of the argument. By the way, in my constituency, I was and, during the campaign, remained and still am friends with those who espoused the campaign for a different viewpoint. Politics at least can be conducted gentlemanly in Banff and Banffshire and Buckingham coast. I think that both sides did not realise the extent to which we would empower and activate grassroots. In many places, we found that schools were trying to work with national bodies when the real energy of the campaign was in quite a plethora of small local based bodies. Schools found that difficult to engage with. The pattern of politics has changed and the old methods were being applied. Schools played it safe if they could not get someone from both sides of the argument. They were cancelling debates and I think that that was fairly disappointing. Tam Bailey, the commissioner for children and young people, particularly points to what the Scottish Youth Parliament did through its eye nae mibie campaign. It is important that young people themselves reach out to other young people. If we look at the survey, we find that overwhelmingly that was the source of information for young people who voted. In other words, their own peer group. I think that that should be no surprise to us. I, returning to Lloyd George, my great hero as I approached my 70th birthday in 1908, introduced the first national pension, entitled, as a matter of age, five shillings a week for 17-year-olds. Well done, Lloyd George. Well done, the Liberals, for encouraging me to get involved in politics, the loss that I chose to join the SNP because of their manifest and obvious shortcomings. Mark Griffin to be followed by Mary Scanlon. I would also like to congratulate Patrick Harvie for securing a debate this afternoon on this important subject. It is fair to say that the referendum galvanised Scotland at home at work, community centres, pubs and, of course, in our schools, people in villages, towns and cities, whether they were yes, whether they were no, definitely had a view, and that came over loud and clear with a turnout of almost 85 per cent. It was nothing that I have ever experienced and I do not think that Scotland had experienced that level of turnout before. I do not think that anywhere, nowhere else was the referendum more of a hot topic than in our schools with votes for 16 and 17-olds for the first time. Lots of school organised debates, some more freely than others, with some of the rules that were spoken about by Patrick Harvie. I took part in a number of those school debates in Cymru, Old and Coast South and elsewhere in Central Scotland. Anybody who participated in those debates would say that the general interest level of engagement from the young people who were there was incredible and, like Patrick Harvie, he would not want to cheer one side's win over the other. I think that I would celebrate more than anything that was the fact that the young people who were there were open to the arguments that were being put forward. They were amenable to different points. Quite a few of the votes that were taken place had shown that quite a few people had changed their minds over the courses of the debate, and we are open to that information. Probably a lot more open than anybody else in the chamber was to any arguments or information that we were getting. I have been a supporter of votes at 16 for a long time. I am delighted that progress has finally been made. I do not think that it is right that 16 and 17-year-olds can leave school, get a job, pay tax, drive a car, but they do not have any say in electing any of us or their local representatives at a council level. As someone who was brought up in a political family, I was involved in election campaigns from a very young age, and I have been involved to some extent in every election in Scotland since 1992. Growing up, I was desperate to vote after handing out all those leaflets, being on battle buses, giving out balloons and everything else, and the only wish that I had was that I would have gotten that chance earlier. I have been involved in every election since 1992, but when I cast my first vote, that was in 2004, 12 years on from first being engaged, and I am sure that some of you can do the maths on that one. I am pleased that we have committed the Labour Party to extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds at a UK level to extending the franchise in the UK by 1.5 million people. I am pleased as well that there seems to be a broad consensus here that we should do this game for Scottish Parliament elections and council elections, I hope. If we put the referendum to one side, we still have an issue with voter disengagement across the country. There are lots of reasons for that, but we looked to the European election, which was a matter of months before the referendum, and it only had a 33 per cent turnout in North Lanarkshire. There was a similar turnout for the council elections in 2012, so it is really important that not only do we increase the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but ensure that they get that balanced political education in school, that mock debates in elections are increased and become the norm, so that there is that greater level of political engagement in understanding, as Patrick Harvie points out, that they are motivated to vote in that first election, and then that election becomes a pattern for the rest of their lives, I think. Finally, one thing that we should also consider while extending the franchise is this new generation of 16 and 17-year-olds who are allowed to vote, and when they go to cast the first vote in perhaps a cold and draughty community hall after years of taking part in online elections through Facebook, voting for an X-factor winner over the phone that suddenly they are voting for a new government by post, or in a draughty community hall. I think that that is something that we should be looking at as well to increase turnout, and with that point made up, I thank you for your patience and thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the debate to the chamber. I would also like to thank Patrick Harvie for securing this debate on young voters and also for welcoming the excellent work of the Devolution Committee. I think that we all share the concerns regarding voter turnout, and I thought that Patrick's analysis was excellent. Having known Stuart Stevenson for a long time, I would like to thank our own Stuart for another one of his two unique, excellent and memorable contributions to this debate. I did my fair share of hustings across the Highlands, and I have to say that we almost started sharing cars, myself and John Finnie. I think that he did more hustings with John than any other parliamentarian, but we didn't just meet 16-17-year-old in schools. They also attended meetings in village halls, joined in the street stalls, were at the Highland games, the agricultural shows and the many other gatherings to debate and to join in the referendum. We had a great team of young people in Murray, some of whom were still a few months too young to vote in the referendum, and they were certainly much more informed in the political debate than I ever was at their age. The Scottish Conservatives fully support the call for the franchise to be extended to include 16-17-year-olds in all elections, and we were pleased that the Prime Minister's signature on the Edinburgh agreement allowed 16-17-year-olds to vote in the referendum last year. I noticed a Guardian article, on 7 January, stating that the Prime Minister said that he would be open to leaving it to MPs in the comments whether the vote should be extended to 16-17-year-olds. I think that the debate is interesting down south as well. In the same article, a number of Tory-backed benchers, including former Minister Damian Greene, have expressed support for reducing the voting age, and I think that that is very healthy, and I think that we would all understand that that is their decision, not our decision. The Smith commission is now taking the next step in terms of lowering the voting age for 16-17-year-olds in the Scottish Parliament elections. It will be in place for the 2016 election as we implement the first stage of the Smith commission's historic cross-party agreement on devolution of further powers to Scotland, giving us all the powers in relation to Scottish Parliament and local government elections here. Whether you are for or against giving votes to the 16- or 17-year-olds, no one could fail to be impressed at the participation and understanding of the issues relating to the referendum. They made their own case. The questions from school pupils on the currency, EU membership, international crime, defence, terrorism, and even MI5 could not fail to impress. 16-17-year-olds were not passive by-standers in this debate. They were at the heart of the debate. I attended hustings in schools from Tobormory to Gordonston with Richard Lochhead, and at both Elgin High School and Gordonston, the attendance was around 300. I did notice a member of staff at Gordonston wearing a yes badge, so I can assume from that that they placed no restriction on freedom of expression or indeed freedom of speech. Unfortunately, we were barred by Highland Council from taking part in a debate at King UC High School and resorted to the village hall where some pupils were allowed to attend at the end of their school day. Unlike Scottish Borders Council, where schools were encouraged to hold debates during school hours, given the transport and travel issues, in rural areas. It is also worth mentioning that South Ayrshire Council provided a session for young people who had recently left school and were in the Skills Towards Employment project to improve their employability, and they brought them into the debate, too. Conservatives would not wish to dictate to local authorities how to conduct their approach to the referendum of national elections in schools. However, we would trust that all local authorities will reflect, as Patrick Hardy said, on what they did during the referendum, what worked, what did not and what they would do differently next time round. I think that we have to respect the democratic status and responsibilities for councils. Finally, the mock election votes in Aberdeenshire and Murray schools were both predicting a no majority at a time when the polls were emphatically yes, so it seems that the 16 and 17-year-olds predicted the outcome much more accurately than many of the pollsters. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Patrick Harvie for securing this debate, obviously regarding the young voters, which I think we all are saying is very, very important, not only to the young people involved but to democracy as a whole. Indeed, Highlands secondary school, who were in the gallery just shortly visiting the Parliament, and I think that we are hoping to meet with them later, is a very good example of schools engaging with politics. Local members and Patrick Harvie will probably remember this, can vouch for it myself and him, and others took part in mock elections. Basically, the scrutiny and the questions were very, very good indeed. I would imagine that we could say that they put so many different questions to us, not just that particular school but others as well. I think that we all learned from that experience, not just in Highlands but in all schools throughout the country as well. The referendum brought about a huge interest in politics and participation. In a scale that none of us have ever seen before, and I take on board what Patrick Harvie said, it was exciting. It certainly was very exciting, not just for me but for others as well. I think that it is really important to continue with that participation as the motion reads. I welcome the cross-party support for voting for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish parliamentary elections. Taking on board what Mary Scanlon has just said in regard to David Cameron and Westminster, I would encourage all parties at Westminster to look to extending the voting age for that age to all parliamentary elections, as is mentioned by Mark Griffin. As I said, Patrick Harvie spoke about the excitement and the vibrancy during the referendum campaign, and he is absolutely correct. It was just overwhelming. Everyone, young people and everyone involved, certainly in my area in Glasgow, became alive. People were dashing the street, people were dashing community centres, you went to visit various school groups and groups who were not actually in school but various children's organisations, and that was all they could talk about because it meant something to them. They were just so involved, it was absolutely wonderful. I would just hope that we can continue that participation. I must say that a number of the schools that I have visited since have continued that participation. Some of them have got Voxpops, some of them have radio stations, they have got Facebook, they have got Twitter, all organised during the referendum campaign but continued on from here. I think that we have to mention our education service here in the Parliament. I think that they do a great job, not just in the outreach of schools but in bringing the kids in here as well, which we would go and ask questions of and speak to as well. I think that they do an excellent job. Stuart Stevenson mentioned the youth Parliament. They do a fantastic job as well. I was in Cardiff not recently a couple of months ago with a representative from the youth Parliament and we were talking to other areas of man, Jersey, Guernsey, and they were so impressed with what we were doing in the Scottish Parliament to engage and encourage young people to become involved. It has not ended there. I am sure that most of you will see it as well. We have got the general election campaign starting with the young people who were involved in the referendum campaign, particularly Mary and Glasgow. They are back on the streets again. They are back in what we have in party, the party hub, which was launched once again on Saturday. Those young people are back and are a plug for Lady Gaga, but not the Lady Gaga, just one of our activists, as you might call it, who became involved and comes along and sings to some of the events that we have. Certainly, it has transcended to the general election campaign as well. We have captured it and we cannot let it go. I thank everyone, particularly Patrick, for bringing forward this motion. I really enjoyed all the contributions today. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Hans-Alan Malik, after which we will move to closing speech from the minister. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. I also thank Patrick Haraway for securing today's debate. It is an honour to talk about young voters and their engagement in today's debate. The 85% turnout in last September's referendum on Scotland's future was truly remarkable. However, the recent survey by TNS found that only 64% of people who voted in the referendum will or were planning to vote in the upcoming general election. More than 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds came out to vote in the referendum. No doubt stimulated by the great importance of the question that were being asked about Scotland's future. However, the fact remains that engaging young people in debate has proven to be quite difficult. As I have stated before, there is a wider problem of youth disengagement from politics. Putting the referendum aside, recent reports suggest that 30% of young people aged 18 to 25 were not even registered to vote in advance of the recent local and European elections. And there is also the people who are registered to vote but didn't actually bother voting at all. In the last general election in 2010, fewer than half of all 18 and 24-year-olds voted, which was much lower than the national average. Scotland has played an important role in supporting and encouraging debate on politics, and the issue is the run-up to the referendum. As past passions ran high, there were some instances where young people felt intimidated by both teachers and pupils of different options, opponents. Some of the most stimulating and thoughtful voting experiences during the referendum campaign came from talking to young people up and down Scotland. On the whole, the referendum has been a positive experience for 16 and 17-year-olds, which needs to be built upon. The Labour Party, like myself, strongly support the extension of voting rights to this age group, and I am happy to see a broad cross-party backing to support reducing the voting age to 16. So let's continue to build on that. But, Presiding Officer, I think what's remarkable and really very important is the fact that the Labour Party is wanting to introduce this right across the UK, and I think that's important. 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds can get married as already stated, hold jobs, be parents, and be successful and important elements of our communities. Why should they be denied the vote? It takes me back to the early days when women didn't have the vote, and it took a lot of campaigning for them to do that. I think voting is important. I think that young people should be encouraged, and I think that the new media system should be used as well, as colleagues already mentioned. I think that online voting can be done and should be encouraged as well, because it means that very many people, people with disabilities, people who have difficulties in accessing buildings and the like, can actually participate in voting themselves, rather than have somebody else vote for them. I know that the postal system is there, postal votes are there. However, I think people want to actually see their vote to register online themselves, and I think that if we can introduce that in the future as well, it would be very helpful. Overall, I am a great supporter of the age to be produced and allowing our young citizens to participate as they do in everyday life. Thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I add my congratulations to Patrick Harvie, and thank you for bringing this debate to the chamber at such a timely moment. As many have already said, the referendum was a remarkable demonstration of democracy at its best, and it is right that the chamber both recognises and celebrates the impact that young people have had on politics and the opportunity that the extension of the franchise presents to our democracy. It is also right that we seek to maintain the momentum gained through the referendum and civic engagement, not only in young people, but right across the population in town hall meetings, public events and school debates. What the referendum and that phenomenal 84.5 per cent turnout showed is that people are not indifferent to politics by nature. People engage and engage strongly when they see that they have a role to play and that they can impact and affect the outcomes. That is perhaps one of the biggest roles for us as politicians, to show people that they have a role to play at various levels. Individuals across the country, many of whom had never voted before, some of whom had not even registered to vote previously, engaged, sought out information and made their decision because they saw what could be achieved. They saw that their vote could make a difference that would impact on their lives. I, like many others, commend their schools, local authorities and other organisations who arranged, supported and participated in school debates, public hustings and information events, allowing young voters to engage with the issues and hear the arguments from both sides. Political debates and mock referendum schools gave young people the chance to express their opinions on Scotland's future, and they did so in a mature and thoughtful manner. I take on board the points that were made by a number of members across the chamber, but in some cases that was variable and that maybe we need in the future to look at how there can be a more consistent approach in that. I will steal Patrick Harvie's words here and say that you will really need to learn from the best as we take this forward. The curriculum for excellence gives all learners the opportunity to gain the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to be politically literate. It helps learners to continue to develop as responsible citizens and to participate in decision making, to take an active role in society and to be directly involved in changing their communities for the better. It is not just about voting, it can be other participation as well. Education Scotland's online resource for learners and educators covers not just the importance of political literacy and understanding politics, but also the role of social media and information about how young people can get involved in the democratic processes in their schools and communities. All parties, including the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the Electoral Commission, have a shared aim to ensure that all young people are prepared to cast a well-informed vote after engaging in a balanced and well-informed consideration of the issues. I am grateful. I wonder if he agrees with me and would put it to the directors of education that part of that engagement that all young people should be able to expect is active debates, which you do not have to be signed up to a modern studies class to go to, something that all young people get to participate in and experience in schools. Is that something that should become the norm everywhere? As I said, I am not going to stand here and tell schools how to do their education, but I certainly think that we should learn from the best. In schools where there were those, those kinds of debates, I think that the young people appreciated it and appreciated the fact that that gave them the ability to make the most informed decision possible. I think that somebody else had, I think that it was Mr Griffin mentioned earlier, that age group or probably the group who changed their vote most often as they were hearing the arguments and deciding for themselves. The day of young people voting the way their parents voted for no other purpose, I think that they are gone and young people have shown that they are going to make up their own minds and their own decisions based on the facts as they see them. Many people across the chamber up and down the country have examples from our own constituencies where young people have been given the opportunity to engage, to learn and to make mature, thoughtful and responsible decisions. Every opportunity they have grasped that opportunity willingly and with ability. Scotland's young people have amply demonstrated their enthusiasm, engagement and willingness to participate in the democratic process. They have not taken that responsibility lightly and neither should we. A lot has been said about the record-breaking turnout and unprecedented levels of engagement by the people of Scotland. Scotland should be proud of the fact that we are now the most democratically engaged nation in western Europe and we must not lose the momentum that was reflected in the substantial number of people who voted for the first time, including 16 and 17-year-olds. The Scottish Government is committed to playing its part in meeting that ambition. Our programme for government, published in November, set out our commitment to learn lessons from the referendum, as Patrick Harvie has said, and to continue the process of making voting more meaningful for our people and our communities. In particular, I want to ensure that young people have the opportunity to meaningfully engage with and shape democratic debate as they did ahead of the referendum. It has long been the Scottish Government's policy to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds where we can do so. We did so for the referendum because it was the right thing to do to encourage participation of young people in Scotland's democratic processes and to give them a voice on matters that affect them. We have had success on that front and I am delighted that there is now cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament for extending the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds for the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I am delighted that we now have a deal with the UK Government to transfer the required powers to make this possible. The Government now intends to bring forward legislation to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible after the order is enforced to lower the voting age to 16 for those elections, and that will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 and all future Scottish Parliament and local government elections. During the debate on 23 September, the then First Minister called on all parties to take a vow to urge the UK Government to build on the success of the referendum and to lower the voting age to 16 for all elections. Indeed, many young people who participated in the referendum in September will be somewhat disappointed that they cannot participate in the Westminster elections that will take place in May. That frustration that Mark Griffin felt when he was, I think, 12. Who would deny that the decisions to extend the referendum franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and its implementation was an outstanding success and a contribution to the unprecedented levels of democratic engagement that we witnessed. The case for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in all election is no longer theoretical. It is now unarguable, but unfortunately the powers in relation to the franchise for UK elections and the EU elections remains with Westminster. The Scottish Government—and I hope everyone in this chamber—will urge the UK Government to bring forward legislation at Westminster as soon as possible to lower the voting age for its elections also. For now, I again thank Patrick Harvie for bringing this debate to the chamber and everyone across the chamber to work with the Scottish Government to ensure a swift passage of the legislation to enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds in good time for the Scottish Parliament elections on 5 May 2016. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2 o'clock.