 The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 10990 in the name of Christina McKelvie on voting franchise for 16 and 17 year olds. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. MacElvie, addysg hynny yw 7 perio ar y cyflancion nesaf. Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister. It's a great honour to lead this debate today, but I certainly haven't been leading this debate for as long as some people I know in this chamber who have been leading it for many, many years. Can I say a huge thank you to my colleagues across the chamber who signed this motion, to allow it to be debated? I did go and lobby some of them and I really appreciate their support and thank you very much for that, but more so I think the young people who have petitioned, who have worked hard, who have taken part in democracy will give them their thanks too. Can I pay particular tribute to the Scottish Youth Parliament, who for many years have had their votes at 16 campaign? There's been many petitions over the years and a lot of them that we have all taken part in and signed. Can I also pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Mr Max Cruickshanks, who has been working alongside the Scottish Youth Parliament and has been a youth worker for many, many years and has always backed the votes at 16 campaign. Our party policy, because I remember debating it many decades ago now, has always been and we have always been committed to votes at 16 and we have applied that as a government over the very, very limited areas that we have. It was a great delight to see in the Edinburgh agreement that, for this referendum, we have just experienced that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds would have that very important civic duty and responsibility. There were some cynical voices about the ability of our young people to participate in the debate that we've just had on the referendum, while they were certainly put to rest those cynical voices and they got it very, very wrong. I'm grateful to the member for giving way. I wonder if she would accept what I found, which was that some 16 and 17-year-olds themselves were a little bit doubtful as to whether they knew enough to vote, but those same ones have come to me since the referendum and said, yes, we got it right. I've got a few anecdotes of my own of some of the young people that I have spoken to, many hundreds of them over the past wee while. There's no way of predicting voting patterns in an untested group, and it was something of an unknown quantity for us all. It was a bit of a leap into the dark, and that's a quote that Disraeli spoke of when the franchise was extended under the 1928 Representation of People's Act, when it came in to play again on 18 September. It was a bit of a leap into the dark, and John Mason has just made some reference to that where there was some doubt from some of the young people themselves. It took a century for voting rights to be extended from that tiny minority of property-owning men over the age of 30 to the universal suffrage for every adult aged 18, regardless of wealth, property, class or employment, or location. Some 3.6 million people of our small, amazing country turned out to vote in the referendum. Of those, 109,533 were 16 and 17-year-olds, so I think that maybe a lot of their doubts were blown away by the time it came to referendum day. The future of Scotland lies not exclusively in the hands of the older generation, but I know that all my colleagues across the country would have had amazing conversations with young people who even stumped me in some cases with their knowledge and their aspiration for what they want for their country. Those young people will build their lives, families, careers and ultimately their old age in this country. Democracy is not just a snapshot in time for them, it's a process, it's an evolution, a constantly changing arc of responsibility. To work successfully, democracy must respond to those shifts in society, so that reflects the demands that are made upon it. I think that we are taking that very seriously in this chamber today. The First Minister himself has said that 16 and 17-year-olds have shown themselves to be serious, passionate and committed citizens, and that there is an overwhelming unanswerable case for giving them the right to vote in all future UK and Scottish elections. Like myself, as I said, I have been enormously impressed with the teenagers with whom we have debated with and discussed the question of our independence and our future of Scotland. Camping around my constituency in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, I met hundreds of 16 and 17-year-olds who have become seriously engaged in politics because their referendum vote and their own part in it became very important to them. I remember, Presiding Officer, one day we had a yes hub in the centre of Hamilton, where a group of 15 young people came along and their lunch break from Hamilton grammar. None of them had made up their mind how they were going to vote in their referendum and they all had ideas on what they would do. We stood in the street, it was a nice sunny day, we stood in the street and had this debate about the powers that Scotland should have and what it could have. One of the most endearing and absolutely amazing facts that will remain in my memory for all time was those kids walking along the road, armed with all the bits of information that we were going up the top cross to see the better together people to do the same with them. They were going along the road and they were talking about nuclear weapons and they were talking about pensions and they were talking about childcare and they were talking about their standing in the world. One person was saying, but could we move nuclear weapons safely? Another one was saying, no, I don't think so. That kind of debate took place in every street and every part of Scotland and none more so with some of our amazing young people. They took that great leap. The membership of my local branch is now huge and absolutely populated by many, many, many of those young people. Some of them as young as 14. However, it is not because of the president set by the Scottish referendum that the law needs to be changed. It is because seeing young people engaged and involved in their own futures is a fundamental tenant of democracy and one with which they demand to engage. None more so than my 16-year-old son, who this time last year would never have thanked me for a political conversation, never mind even a debate, who got so engaged in this, who was up at 7am knocking my door saying, we need to go and vote. I don't think I had any influence on him because he's a very strong-willed young man and how he'd vote, but he'd just made up his mind and he's become so involved. I think I've created a bit of a monster. He now watches every debate and critiques me on them. I don't know if that's a good thing, but Scotland can be a beacon to the rest of the UK. This extension of the ballot for once let the UK Government accept that we were right. We have proven it. Our young people have proven it. It's now time to give every 16 and 17-year-old the same right as anybody else to decide who governs them directly. It's good for every political party, and it's good for democracy. I would ask my colleagues across the chamber, the young people who have all arrived in the gallery, to ask the Scottish Government to use every means, including the Smith commission, to ensure that votes at 16 are brought about for every young person in the UK. Thank you. I now call on Kezia Dugdale to be followed by Claire Adamson. Four minute speeches are thereby pleased. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Christina McKelvie on securing this debate and note her long-term commitment to this issue. Like her, I've supported votes at 16 for a long time. I think that there's a much wider need for political and electoral reform around a whole number of different issues. I'm very grateful to her for her recent support for a campaign that I'm involved in called Women 5050, which is about ensuring that all future parliaments in this place will be balanced 5050. There are at least four other MSPs in the chamber just now who have signed that. I encourage my colleagues to do that as well. I think that the moment is now. On the issue of votes at 16, I can't believe what I'm looking back that was ever viewed as controversial. Post referendum and Christina McKelvie touched on that. It just now seems like the normal thing—the right thing to do to give young people a voice. Christina McKelvie was reflecting on some of her experiences of the referendum campaign. I remember doing one street stall on the east end of Edinburgh, and around about three o'clock the school tipped out. We were absolutely overtaken with S5 and S6 pupils from Port of Bello high school, desperate to ask some hard questions about the currency, about what we bought, about X, Y and Z, so much so that we blocked the road. There were a few people on Twitter highlighting the health and safety hazard that we created, and it all got a bit dramatic for a second. There were also dozens and dozens of other hustings that I participated in. Without a doubt, the most invigorating ones were the ones for young people. I took part in one, for example, hosted by Burymere High School and James Gillespie High School, where they had 700 S5 and S6 pupils in one place grilling me and Sarah Beattie Smith from the S campaign about the case for and against independence. To say that the best questions came from young people has the danger of sounding patronising, but the reality is that it is true. I will tell you why I think that that is. I think that young people are less likely to think about I, the individual, and more likely to talk about we, the country, and what type of country we want to be. They have less political baggage and are more driven by the first principle of what we can do to make this country a better place. I have not read the full report, but I did hear Professor Ailsa Henderson talk on Scotland tonight, I think that it was earlier this week, about some of the demographics around the referendum result. I am sure that I heard her say that the most informed group were 16 and 17-year-olds when they researched who had read the most before they came to their conclusion about how they were going to vote, and the evidence from the University of Edinburgh was that it was the age category 16 to 17 that had done the most homework. What now? We have a duty to keep the political engagement alive, and there is a great danger that those people who have a voice will be excluded from next year's general election. I appreciate the sensitivities of a member's debate, but I have no doubt that Christina McKelvie is calling on us and David Cameron to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds have voted in next year's general election. I support that call, and I have written to David Cameron myself asking for that to happen. There is a reason for that, because if you voted no, like I did, you did it because you believed that the best way to make our country a more prosperous, equal and just place was to gather across the aisles using the resources, hopes and ambitions of 63 million people. If you are 16 and 17 and voted no, you are now relying on other people to vote for that vision. If you voted yes, you are angry and you are disappointed, and I get that, but there is a great danger that you might be disenfranchised from the political process, because you too are voiceless without a vote. 100 per cent back what Christina McKelvie is arguing for today, I fully support her campaign and I hope that the message from this Parliament is loud and clear to Mr Cameron that we need to give 16 and 17-year-olds a vote next year. Now Colin Clare Adamson to be followed by John Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Christina McKelvie on securing this debate this afternoon, a very important debate and one that gives us an opportunity to reflect once again on the great civic participation that we had in Scotland during the referendum. There are many examples of how young people have engaged in the process, but through schools, youth clubs and the Scottish Youth Parliament, as we mentioned by Ms McKelvie, I would like to highlight in particular one group of young people and their response to the referendum. Scottish Youth Theatre is Scotland's national theatre for and by children and young people. The Scottish Youth Theatre chose to have the independence as the centre of their deliberations over the two years leading up to the referendum. By choosing to use independence as the theme, it was prompt to ask young people questions and allowed them to voice their fears, to research all aspects on all sides of the debate. That was reflected in the many versions of the production now's the hour. It was performed as part of the youth theatre summer festival in 2013 and went on to be adapted and performed in many different areas. It was a very interesting and unique concept. The young people wrote a letter to their future selves expressing their deliberations about the referendum process and above all it was really entertaining. I had the delight in seeing it here in this Parliament in the Festival of Politics in 2013. I attended that with my then 16-year-old son who was going through the process himself. He found it thought-provoking, informed, fun and really reflective of young people and their maturity in the way that they were approaching it. There was a documentary by the BBC made about the production. It was broadcast in April 2014. Again, the young people took part in their collaboration in the cross-party group and culture in May 2014 in this Parliament. Undaunted by a very esteemed audience, which includes the National Theatre of Scotland, who we are also performing, and a panel that included Ruth Wishart and Billy Kay, the young people performed part of now's the hour and then went on to engage and talk to people attending the cross-party group and give more insight into their experience of what they were doing in their deliberations about the referendum. I thought that this was a fantastic opportunity for young people. Many people also had the ability to see the production in the Edinburgh fringe. It was performed every lunchtime during the fringe process. It was a great reflection of our young people, a great reflection of Scotland's support for young people through the National Youth Theatre. For 38 years, they have been giving children and young people in Scotland a wide variety of opportunities to precipitate in high-quality theatre and giving a voice to those young people. We owe them a great debt and a great thanks for their opportunity in that respect. The Scottish Youth Theatre put young people at the centre of everything that they do. They believe that every young person in Scotland is a great deal to offer, and they, in their work, give those young people a chance to shine. If we put our young people at the heart of everything that we do, we can only expect the same wonderful outcomes that were shown by now's the hour. Extending the franchise should not be doubted. If anyone does, go and look at the work of the Youth Theatre and the amazing young people who took part in that. I hope that, in the future, the franchise will be extended to all elections, and I encourage every young person involved in politics, involved in their youth organisations to consider making that known to the Smith commission. I am too pleased to speak in this debate, and I congratulate Christina McKelvie for securing the time to allow the debate to take place. I would also like to add my support to the call for a franchise to be lowered to include 16 and 17-year-olds across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is true that my party initially opposed lowering the age for the referendum. At the time, we made it clear that we were opposed not to the debate on altering the age for voting but the singling out of the referendum for a trial extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Notwithstanding that, I fully accept the decision of this Parliament to lower the voting age for the referendum. Indeed, without the Prime Minister's signature on the Edinburgh agreement, 16 and 17-year-olds would not have been allowed to vote. However, the situation now is entirely different. 16 and 17-year-olds have been given the vote. They have conducted themselves in a commendable way and have engaged in the political process. The motion speaks about how 16 and 17-year-olds were highly visible, active and made a welcome contribution to the constitutional debate in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. That certainly reflects what I witnessed of young people across the Scottish Borders. During the long campaign, I spoke to many young voters at school debates, hustings and on polling day. I was hugely impressed by the level of engagement and understanding that our young people demonstrated. It was clear that many of them were taking their responsibility very seriously, that they were turning out to vote and that their experience will hopefully encourage them to participate in future elections. That is why I believe that the case has now been made to lower the franchise, but I do so in the correct way, namely on a UK-wide basis. I will not repeat at length the arguments about what age people should be allowed to vote. Parliaments have to draw a line somewhere, and it seems to me that there are valid arguments for having that age at 16, at 17 or at 18. Particularly in the United Kingdom, where there is no single age at which all responsibility and liabilities are imposed at once. One age is not necessarily better than others, and across all ages, we need to do more to engage with voters and increase turnout. However, one point that I do find convincing is that, when voting age has been reduced in other countries, turnout rates of 16 and 17-year-olds were found to be comparable to those of the electorate at large and higher than 18 to 20-year-olds. If lowering the age will help to increase overall turnout rates, then that is a compelling reason to look very closely at lowering the voting age. On a purely practical level, we cannot ignore the fact that the vote has now been given to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are therefore now talking about withdrawing the right to vote to a group of people who have been allowed to vote on the future of Scotland and the future of the United Kingdom. I think that to oppose extending the franchise to all elections, now that the decision has been taken, would be the wrong thing to do. Given the way in which 16 and 17-year-olds conducted themselves last month, we should all be proud of them and should be thinking about very carefully extending the franchise to them all on a permanent basis. Thank you. Thank you also to Christina McKelvie for holding this debate and also a note that it's good to see Joe Fitzpatrick in the place responding to the debate. He doesn't get many opportunities to do that and I'm sure he'll be thanking Christina as well. I have, like Christina, been a supporter of this campaign for as long as I've been in the SNP and probably longer as well. I have always seen the theory of this, the point of the three things that you can do at 16, marry, you can join the army, you can work full-time and pay tax. I think that everybody has seen that theory, but now we've seen the practice as well of what actually happens. As with so many big reforms, things that seemed a bit scary and risky before they happened after they get done, suddenly everybody sees how well they can work. Perhaps there's a wider lesson in there, but I will leave that aside for another day to avoid accusations of digging up the referendum. To go back to what Kezia Dugdale was saying about the questions that are asked, it is fair to say that the kind of questions you got during the referendum when you were in front of a youth audience were different. You would always get the ones that you expected, the classics, the standard questions that always came up about the currency or the EU or even EastEnders, but you would get things that would just surprise you. I remember that the Scottish Youth Parliament questioned and answered a panel there. It wasn't so much the content that surprised me, but the electronic voting, the instant reality TV style rating of our answers—that was a nerve-wracking experience, I can assure you—but all the schools I went to, there was just such a fantastic atmosphere and fantastic energy. At Broughton High School, I was ushered in to speak to the head teacher who realised that the head of modern studies had brought me in as a sole MSP for this and said, whatever you do, don't talk about the referendum. I said, of course, I wouldn't talk about the referendum. There was just a question and answer, not a debate, but of course that was all the young people wanted to talk about. So I talked about the importance of voting. I said, leave the decision, make the decision, research it, I'll leave that up to you, but what matters here is to vote and boy did they do so. But I've had great experiences even from primary schools. The unpredictability of those questions are amazing. Flora Stevenson's primary, I got asked at the end of a long series of quite serious questions, one of those ones that just throws you, what is your secret talent? I thought, oh heck, because it was a bit reality TV, but it was also, you know, what can you say to a group of 11-year-olds, really, in that situation? I would ask you to maybe think about how you would answer. Another primary school, I got asked towards the end of a set of questioning if any MSPs had ever been arrested. You know, that's an interesting question. I wouldn't think about where the question came from, but it gave me an excuse to talk about non-violent direct action, the kind of things that many MSPs have done for causes that they believe in, whether they've tried it or others. I remember as well, in the last two days of the referendum, there was a yes shop that opened up in Gorgie roads, just along from Tynecastle High School. On the first day, the Tynecastle kids all came in looking for information. It must have been good information because they all came in the next day wearing yes badges. All of those are great experiences that I'm going to look back on fondly. Looking ahead, will 16 and 17-year-olds, if they're enfranchised, vote in elections with as much passion as they voted in the referendum? Maybe, maybe not. Elections are different to referendums. Are we ever going to have an 85% turnout? Let's remember that not everybody who has the right to vote exercises it, and that is a valid choice that you have to respect. I hope that 16 and 17-year-olds will get the vote. I hope that 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to use the vote, whether that is through the Scotland Act or UK-wide. That is a really good reform. As was said at the eve of the referendum, I think that let's do this. Many thanks. Colin Hansala-Mallick, to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. I thank Christine McAlpine for securing today's debate. Thank you very much, Christine. There are over 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK, denied the vote, and during the referendum debate, I debated and campaigned with many 16 and 17-year-olds in Glasgow. There was thoughtful and passionate engagement in this debate by the age bracket and there is an overwhelming case for the vote to be given to the 16 and 17-year-olds in any election. I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds have sufficient maturity and knowledge in order to cast a vote if they wish to do so. Not only are 16 and 17-year-olds by law able to make complex decisions and take a wide range of responsibilities, they are also showing in practical that they are making a positive difference. Furthermore, there is a wide problem of young disfranchising from politics. During the referendum, putting the referendum aside, recent reports suggest that 30 per cent for young people aged 18 to 25 were not registered in advance of the recent local and European elections and there are also the people who have registered didn't even bother to vote. Action is now long overdue. It is essential that we let 16 and 17-year-olds engage and participate in our democracy. Having learned the principles of compulsory citizenship education to solve this, there are suggestions such as automatic registration, but this is not for me to decide that that should be the case. It is just an example. Votes at the age will inspire young people to get involved in our democracy, which I believe is fundamentally very, very important. Our 16 and 17-year-olds engage in many aspects in our industry and in our communities culturally in terms of going and serving in the armed forces, for example, working in industry, getting married and having a family. These are more dangerous and more important issues than a vote and if they can participate in those issues, then why not the vote? Hence, so much not to make the 16 and 17-year-olds overweight, it is squandering their energy, their passion and enthusiasm in participating in democracy. I think we as a community and as a nation suffer for that shortfall. I think it is very important that our young at 16 and 17 are made to realise that we actually do value their ideas and their aspirations. If they are not allowed to vote, I believe that there is a segment of our community missing in real terms. Hence, it is important that even people who are at schools, colleges and universities are made to believe and they see it practically that we as a community take their views seriously, they are allowed to participate in decision making. I think what is more important is that it will then hopefully encourage them to continue to use the vote throughout their lives, which I think is very important. If democracy is to survive, we must allow a young as we do in our schools and colleges to be educated in democracy. I believe that they are right, I think that time is right and therefore I support the 16 and 17-year-olds to vote not only in Scotland but all of the UK for all elections. Thank you very much. I thank Christine McElvie for securing this very important debate in such a timely one as well. I want to start by listing some of the arguments against extending the franchise. For example, 90 per cent of them do not want the vote. The benefit does not outweigh the expense, it will cause division in families, politics is corrupting and of course they do not know enough about the serious issues. Those arguments were not ones that were put recently against young people getting the vote. They were put against women getting the vote back in the days of women's suffrage and of course some of them were repeated to stop the franchise being extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. They seem as absurd now as denying women the vote for those reasons and that is why I feel very confident listening to the debate right across the Parliament today that we will see an extension of the suffrage to 16 and 17-year-olds. I wanted to talk a little bit about praising the role of schools in particular in educating young people in democracy in the course of the referendum debate. It was very notable that the journey that young people travelled on in the course of the referendum campaign. If you could just indulge me, I would like to praise the schools that I participated in debates in, which would be Trinence secondary, Jed Bruggrammer, Langham academy, Dumfries High, Dumfries academy, St Joseph's and Dumfries D&G college, Moff academy, Wallace hall academy and Annan academy. Out with my constituency region, I stepped in for a colleague at Clifton secondary just up the road from my house. In all of those debates, I was really struck by the effort that the teachers and the pupils who were often involved in organising the debates had put in to make them happen because it's not an easy thing to pull off. The curriculum is busy and it's really quite a logistic exercise so I think they should be congratulated and congratulated in the way that they prepared the pupils. If we extend the franchise in future to 16 and 17-year-olds, I think that it will benefit all voters because you will start educating young people when they are at school, when they have access to good, clear, quality, balanced information, not just through the media. I think that that will make them good citizens and political participants for the rest of their lives and I think that that's very important. In terms of the teachers, modern studies teachers in particular played a really important role in organising a lot of these debates. I'm not saying that it was exclusively modern studies teachers but certainly in the schools that I spoke in they certainly played a prominent role. I would just perhaps make the observation that going forward if we get the votes 16 and 17-year-olds and we can continue this level of political education in schools, we have to find a way to make sure that it's consistent and it reaches all pupils because modern studies are a fantastic subject and it would be great if everyone took it and it's a real pride in the Scottish education system. Perhaps we should look at how we can roll out the best quality political education to all our 16 and 17-year-olds. I too had experience in the last few weeks of running many street stalls around different towns in the south of Scotland, many of which were close to schools, and we benefited from the marvellous weather in the last few weeks that allowed us to engage with young people. One of the best memories was in the town of Moffat and seeing three 50-year pupils from Moffat academy sitting on a park bench in the sunshine at the lunchtime reading the wee blue book, which was one of our materials, and being absolutely focused on that. I would also suggest that a lot of young people got engaged in the campaign towards the end and a lot of our debates were really about six months before the campaign. Six months is a long time in the life of a 16-year-old, so I would be keen in future, if we see this extension in the franchise, to ensure that the activity takes place in schools as close to the vote as possible and really captures that kind of sense of excitement that we saw in the last few weeks of the campaign. Thank you very much. Thank you. I now call Minister Joe FitzPatrick to wind up the debate in behalf of the Government. Minister, seven minutes are thereby pleased. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I add my congratulations and thanks to Christina McKelvie for bringing such an important and timely debate to the chamber. The referendum was a remarkable demonstration of democracy at its best, and I do think that this afternoon's debate has been a demonstration of this chamber at its best, too. We have heard in passion speeches, as members have recalled the engagement energy and considered contributions of young people to the debate on Scotland's future. Clare talked about the youth theatre and how that was a great reflection of our young people. Joe McAlpine, I think, very important, articulated and praised the role of schools in making sure that our young people had the information that they required in order to, as Hanzala Malik put it, take part in a passionate debate. However, it was right that Christina McKelvie started off by thanking our ambitious young people, who I think largely made sure that that came about and made sure that we did have votes at 16 for the referendum. However, it was also important that Christina McKelvie acknowledged others, perhaps longer in the tooth, who have been campaigning for votes at 16 for a very, very long time. A lot has been said about the record-breaking turnout and unprecedented levels of engagement among the people of Scotland, but it is crucial that, going forward, we continue to engage and influence the people of Scotland. In particular, we must not lose the momentum in respect of the substantial number of people who voted for the first time. Around 109,000 of those were 16 and 17-year-olds, a huge number of people. 18 September was the first time that 16 and 17-year-olds were entitled to vote in a national poll. It was a policy that the SNP Government has had as a policy for a long time. We have always believed, as Christina McKelvie said, in the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, where we can do so, and we have done that in the Parliament where we have had the powers. However, I know that that is the position of probably everyone who is in the chamber today and a very large number of people across the parties who are not with us just now. When the Government introduced the Scottish independence referendum franchise bill in 2013, there was not universal agreement for the principle of franchising 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. Members of the Parliament, particularly the referendum committee, should be proud of the way in which they scrutinised the Scottish Government's proposals and their constructive and pragmatic approach. That was the case for members of that committee and members of the Parliament, irrespective of where they stood in the principle of the franchise. They all made sure that this was going to happen and that we did it properly and safely, and they managed to devise a workable system for safely extending the franchise. It is a measure of the strength of those proposals, and this Parliament's work, that those arrangements received broad support across the political spectrum and among key stakeholders such as child protection groups and electoral administrators both before and after the referendum. As I say, at the time, not everyone agreed with the principles, but, as Kezia Dugdale said, sometimes you cannot believe that it was ever viewed as a controversial now when you look back, but it really was. It has been a pleasure to witness the democratic engagement of our young people, proud to claim the right to register their vote in a question about the future of their country, and it is no longer controversial. It was Marco Biagi who touched on the fact that the arrangements worked to such good effect that they are now providing us with a template of how the franchise could be extended, not just here in Scotland but elsewhere in the UK and maybe there are other jurisdictions who will be looking at how things worked here in Scotland. I was particularly pleased to hear John Lamont's support for that position of the franchise being extended for all elections. The Scottish Parliament already has a range of powers in regard to local government elections and we have used those to good effect, but Westminster retain responsibility for the franchise, the method of electing members to the Scottish Parliament and the length of tenure of this Parliament. Sections 1 to 3 of the Scotland Act 2012 will devolve some but not full responsibility for the administration of those elections. Those sections will be commenced as soon as possible to ensure that we can prepare for the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. However, even after the commencement of those sections, the Scottish Parliament will still be without some key powers in relation to the election of its members. Let me be clear. Without powers additional to those being devolved by the Scotland Act 2012, we cannot legislate to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on the elections for this Parliament in May 2016 or indeed the local elections in 2017. I hope that colleagues will strongly agree that this Parliament must have those powers. The referendum and its underpinning legislation were made in Scotland and there is no reason why that should not be the case for all elections going forward. With the Scottish elections now just 20 months away, the Government has written to the UK Government requesting, as a matter of urgency, the devolution of those remaining responsibilities for elections to the Scottish Parliament and to local elections in Scotland. We have also urged the UK Government to bring forward legislation at Westminster to lower the voting age for its elections to, I think, resonating with what John Lamont said. In the run-up to the referendum, I was privileged to join Cabinet colleagues at a number of events to engage thousands of people on our proposals for Scotland's future. One of those events was specifically designed to interact and listen to our young people. Held in SCC in Glasgow and jointly organised with the Scottish Youth Parliament, Young Scott and YouthLink Scotland, supported by other youth organisations, the range of subjects discussed at that event were varied, covering education, constitution, defence, young carers, the environment and much more. However, there was one question that a very articulate young woman put to me, which I think stood out for me. She asked, very reasonably, if 16 and 17-year-olds would get to vote in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2016. An election that, at the time, of course, I had hoped would be for the first independent Scottish Parliament. I answered that, in line with SNP policy and SNP Government in an independent Scotland, we would legislate to reduce the voting age to 16 for all elections. However, what about the election in May 2016 was her retort. She said, you cannot give us a vote, then take it back. That would be wrong, she said, and she was absolutely right. It will not be an election for an independent Scotland, but it would be a trabosae if we cannot find a way to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised to vote in that election. Scotland's young people have amply demonstrated that enthusiasm, engagement and willingness to participate in our democratic processes. They have not taken their responsibility lightly, and neither should we. I sincerely hope that the UK Government will take proper note of the positive experiences that we have had here in Scotland, so that we can ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote in all future elections. I thank you all, and I now suspend this meeting until 2.30.