HL Deb 19 January 1972 vol 327 cc65-7

2.45 p.m.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask the Leader of the House whether he will now take steps to lower the age in Standing Order No. 2, dated May 22, 1685 (which states that no Lord under the age of one and twenty shall be permitted to sit in the House), to the age of eighteen, which is now the age for voting in a General Election in the United Kingdom.]

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I would not wish to propose such a change at this time. The minimum age for membership of another place is still twenty-one. Although it is of course—and I acknowledge this straight away—a matter for decision by your Lordships' House, and by your Lordships' House alone, I believe that most noble Lords would desire the age qualification to be the same for both Houses of Parliament.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

My Lords, while naturally respecting the advice of my noble friend the Leader of the House, may I ask whether he agrees with me in principle that it is entirely wrong that certain Peers of the Realm should have no right whatsoever, for up to three years, either to vote in a General Election or to sit in your Lordships' House?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am not quite certain of the precise implications of my noble friend's remarks. However, I will take careful note of what he has said and try to study its implications.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to tell us which Members of this House have a vote at the age of twenty-one?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think in local government elections—

LORD BESWICK

I mean at General Elections.

EARL JELLICOE

—but at a rather earlier age than that, and in this respect they have had it for three years. But, if I may go back to my original Answer, I believe that this is an area in which there is a great deal to be said for our keeping in step with another place. In fact, in one way and another this is a matter which is, or is soon likely to be, under consideration in another place, and I hope that noble Lords will allow us to proceed, as it were, pari passu with another place.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, is it not correct that the noble Lord. Lord Napier and Ettrick, actually mentioned a General Election, and that at the age of twenty-one Members of this House are not able to vote at a General Election? If we are keeping in step with modern thought and progress, ought it not to be a matter of consideration whether Peers should be allowed at twenty-one to vote in a General Election?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think that is going rather wider than the original Question. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is beginning to trespass—though "trespass" is perhaps the wrong word—on ground which we stepped on to some little time ago when we were discussing the more fundamental question of Lords Reform. I was very sorry that we could not then do some of the things which both Front Benches would have liked to see done; and this was one of them. But the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is raising a rather different matter. I think it is one which we should also keep under close consideration, bearing in mind what another place may or may not do.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, if it is considered that a young man at eighteen is fitted to undertake all the responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood, why is he not considered fitted to take part in our deliberations?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, the noble Baroness is raising fundamental biological questions which I am not absolutely sure I am in a position to answer. But the House looked very carefully into this matter in 1667, when there was raised the problem of the noble Earl—or the late noble Earl—Lord Mulgrave, who was only eighteen at the time, and we came to a certain point of view on that particular occasion. It may be that at some appropriate moment we should look at this matter again. I am not certain that this is quite the appropriate moment: it is a question of timing.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the Government could do with some young blood, if not blue blood?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think that there are many not only rather youthful but also, I hope, extremely virile Members, colleagues, on both sides of me.