Public Elections - reduction in voting age to 16

STATES OF JERSEY

r

PUBLIC ELECTIONS: REDUCTION IN VOTING AGE TO 16

Lodged au Greffe on 5th December 2006 by Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

(a ) to agree that the age at which a person should be entitled to have his or her name included on the

electoral register for the purposes of voting in public elections should be reduced from 18 to 16; and

(b ) to charge the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for approval the necessary

amendments to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 to give effect to this proposal.

DEPUTY P.V.F. LE CLAIRE OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

"There is something a little embarrassing about the sight of politicians chasing the teen market, but there is no reason to think 16 year olds would vote with any less seriousness than their parents, even if they do lack a full understanding of the realities of adult life."

(Taken from a newspaper quote from the website VOTES AT 16 CAMPAIGN a cross party organization in the U.K. on Political voting rights for all elections.)

Their website can be found at this internet address – http://www.votesat16.org.uk/

In the U.K., the long-awaited report of the POWER Commission the report into the solutions, to the dwindling turn-outs in Britain has just been published – and it backs lowering the voting age to 16.

The POWER Commission was independent of all parties and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charity which takes a close interest in democracy. The Commission was chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy.

In recommending a lower voting age, the Commission says that the move will help to connect young people with democracy. The Commission stresses that there is not a lack of interest in politics, simply a lack of faith that ordinary people have the power to change things.

Their press release read –

" A f te r eighteen months of investigation, the final report of Power is a devastating critique of the state of formal  democracy  in  Britain.  Many  of  us  actively  support  campaigns  such  as  Greenpeace  or  the Countryside Alliance. And millions more take part in charity or community work. But political parties and elections have been a growing turn-off for years. The cause is not apathy. The problem is that we don't feel we have real influence over the decisions made in our name. The need for a solution is urgent. And that solution is radical. Nothing less than a major programme of reform to give power back to the people of Britain ..."

The power report can be downloaded here – http://www.powerinquiry.org/report/documents/PowertothePeople_002.pdf More information is included in the Appendix to this report

My proposal makes a very simple change by reducing the age from 18 to 16. It would be very simple for PPC to promote the  amendment to the Law – it is just a case of changing one figure. The decision to do so however may be another matter altogether.

What is the situation in Jersey at Present?

The present position, under the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 is that a person has to be 18 to register to vote, in addition to meeting the residency requirements. Once a person is registered they can vote in all public elections (e.g. Senators, Deputies, Connétable s, Centeniers and Procureurs du Bien Public).

Here is the relevant Article from the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 –

"5 E ntitlement to be registered

1. A  person is entitled on a particular day to have his or her nameincludedon the electoral registerfor

an electoral district if on that day –

1. t heperson is at least 18 yearsold;
2. t heperson is ordinarily residentin that district; and
3. t heperson has been –

1. o rdinarily resident in Jersey for a periodof at least 2 years up to and including that day, or
2. o rdinarily residentin Jersey for a period ofatleast 6 monthsuptoand including that day, as well ashaving been ordinarily residentin Jersey at any time for an additional period of, orfor additional periods that total, at least 5 years.

2. A  person is not entitled to have his or her nameincludedon the electoral registers for more than one electoral district attheonetime."

The Isle of Man

The issue about reducing the age of voting to 16 has been around for some time now and is one that I have been supportive of for many years. The recent elections in the Isle of Man were heavily reported in the U.K. television news, which reported very favourably on their initiative, demonstrates that the need for progression in this area is considered by many to be due.

The debate for the consideration of the reduction in age to 16 took place in the House of Keys on 7th February 2006. Most interestingly the final vote was approved overwhelmingly with only 4 voting against the amendment and one against the amended article. The transcripts are included in the Appendix.

Votes for Women in the Isle of Man

The Isle of Man became the first country in the world to give women the vote in national elections. In 1881 the right to vote was extended to unmarried women and widows who owned property, and as a result 700  women received the vote, comprising about 10% of the Manx electorate. In England women had to wait until 1918 for the right to vote, and until 1928 for all women to be eligible to vote.

The original right to vote had been extended to a limited proportion of the Island's population and calls continued to be made for a greater number to be eligible to vote. In the 1870s, out of a population of 53,000, only 4,333 were eligible to vote in elections.

The Election Bill, introduced in 1880, proposed to give the vote to every male person of full age who was not subject to any legal incapacity. Members of the Manchester National Society for Women's Suffrage reasoned that by merely deleting the word male, women would also receive the vote.

The Society organised a series of well attended meetings on the Island to publicise the issue of Votes for Women' and attracted coverage in Manx and English newspapers. The campaign met with substantial support on the Island, both in the papers and amongst women unhappy with paying taxes and rates but having no political representation.

The Election Bill went before the Keys on the 5th November 1880, still with the words male persons' in the Bill. But following comments by the Speaker, Sir John Stenhouse Goldie-Taubman, it was proposed to remove the word male', thereby entitling females to vote.

It was the view of many members of the Keys that justice, taxation and representation go together. The majority of the Keys was supportive and voted 16 to 3 to pass the Bill. Practically the same result for the reduction in age to 16 some 126 years on.

The Jersey Experience

The same position on women voting in Jersey isn't 100% straightforward. The first time women were included was in 1919 but there were very strict criteria to meet for them to be included on the electoral register. Having said that, quite tight restrictions applied to men as well (they had to be ratepayers, etc.). The extension to all men and women only really came in 1945 after the Liberation. The information from Deputy Le Hérissier's book "The development of the government of Jersey 1771-1972" under the heading Extension of Representative Principle – proves most enlightening on the lack of a desire to progress the rights of man and woman in this Island by the States until such time, and upon reflection most would agree is Dickensian.

_______________________________________________________________ "Extension of Representative Principle

There was only one change in the system of representation – the introduction of Deputies in 1854. They became the only members of the States who were elected solely to serve in the States, and to be regularly answerable to the electorate. The Deputies joined the Constables and Rectors as parish representatives for they were elected by parish constituencies similar to those which elected Constables, and although they did not share the heavy administrative burden of the Constable, most attained office only after a long period of honorary service in their parish. Thus, the parishes developed as electoral units with no major concessions to the principle of equal constituency representation. For example, in 1854 St.  Helier

contained over half the Island's population but was only able to elect three out of fourteen Deputies.[3] This appeared to be another instance where the rural interest became more entrenched at the expense of St.  Helier, whose representatives became increasingly identified with the commercial interest.

In 1907 the position was modified as a result of the creation of three more Deputy ships for St. Helier.[4] In 1912 attempts were made to widen the franchise, by some States members who sought the inclusion on the voting list of all

persons over twenty, irrespective of whether or not they were rate-payers.[5] Significantly, the initiative for such reforms came from Deputies of St.  Helier.

The First World War convinced large numbers of Jersey servicemen that they were entitled to certain fundamental social and political rights. Political organisations developed as a response to this pressure. The Jersey Franchise Association campaigned both before and after the war solely for an extension of the franchise; the Jersey Political Association, formed in

1918, sought not only an extension but direct political representation in the States.[6] The Island was affected also by the suffragette campaigning which had taken place in England and, in 1918, the States set up a committee to inquire into the civil and political rights of women.[7]

The electoral bill which appeared in 1919 was largely concerned with extending the franchise to women, other than rate-payers. Under the Loi sur les Droits Electoraux', the vote was given to wives whose husbands were on the rate list, to

women over thirty who paid a rental or its equivalent of ten pounds or over, and to active members of the local Militia.1. A further law was passed in 1919 which enabled single women over twenty to exercise the vote in parochial elections. An amendment to a major law which would give the vote to all persons over twenty years of age was defeated by eighteen votes

to thirteen.2 The parochial electorate was increased only by a small number as a result of these reforms. Overall, the franchise was still dependent largely upon the ownership or rental of property – the exception to this principle, the vote given to active members of the Militia, became less important as the numbers in the Militia fell, followed by its disbanding in 1928. Further

attempts to extend the franchise in the inter-war period failed.3

1. L o i s ur les Droits Electoraux'. R. Mollet,Chronology of Jersey'. p.89. 12.7.1919. S.J., 1954.
2. J. E .P . (S.R.) 15.5.1919.
3. F o r e x ample, an Electoral Rights Bill' was presented to the States in 1926; in 1927 the Committee responsible resigned after the defeat of Article 1. No more is heard of the Bill after 1930 – although some parts had been accepted by the States.

_______________________________________________________________

In understanding how much has changed since the vote for women was introduced, one must place oneself within the learning context that the average 16 year old then had progressed through, compared to the average student of today or even, 20  years ago. As an insight to life just 20 years ago in Jersey, about when I was in my second year of education at secondary school, at that time the entire school was delighted to learn that computer education was to be given to students. The school had procured a computer and we were thrilled at the new possibilities that could open up from that. We were very disappointed to learn during school assembly that the lessons would not be extended to people who were already past the first year, as it was not at that time expected that computers would play that much of a role in our lives in the future. This meant that 5 of the other years at that school received no computer education whatsoever. My education progressed through 4 more years at that school with everyone else under me learning computers. What a total lack of foresight on behalf of the decision-makers and Policy creators at that time. I certainly hope that the States would give credit where credit is due to our youth in Jersey today, who have consistently demonstrated higher academic achievements than their U.K. counterparts in their secondary education examinations, and give them the right to vote at 16.

If one looks at the world today one might be forgiven for thinking the world has gone mad. War ravages many countries and its legacy far outstrips the demand for Overseas Aid that is supplied by developed countries even if one looks at the Natural catastrophes which pale in comparison to the demands that are driven by Countries at war. Wars and Politics touch upon our every day lives to such an extent that they are considered by all ages. Jersey is no stranger to war and nor are its inhabitants. The young men and women from Jersey, who serve and have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces at 16 will be well aware of this. Jersey is also no stranger to Overseas Aid and where it is possible for us to help developing countries or those suffering from natural catastrophes our community shines by its example. Why not then when we encourage our communities to travel to foreign lands to build schools and re-build infrastructure should we not have the ability to tell people if they enquire, what a progressive society we have? One with a fully functioning participative voting community from the age of 16. One where we could hold our heads high and say we empower our youth to have a real say in our affairs. After all how many 16 year olds would choose to harvest from wheat rather than from war? The youth today can begin a career in many fields from weapons manufacturers to Oxfam, so why should they be able to participate in such far-ranging industries as these from – arms industry to the alms industries – yet be denied a vote? The parallels I give here are dramatic but then why should they not be, they're real.

I fully expect to have to counter some bigoted arguments from ageists and many who would question the rights of many to vote in our elections at all, because I have tabled this proposition and I expect the old trump card of not until we do it can it be sensible' will also be played, but they are all transparent and very predictable. The old systems of elections by ballot box are under serious scrutiny at this time. Surely a progressive democracy should be looking to empower the real stakeholders of the future as to how they wish to be heard and more importantly

by whom they would wish to be represented.

An opportunity to educate and increase the numbers of people who vote

I am convinced that giving the right to vote to young people over the age of 16 will create great interest and debate not only at the ages above 16 who currently cannot vote but also amongst those who in 2  years' time will become 16 and therefore eligible. Therefore if we were to introduce them to voting next year we will effectively be generating real interest, with effectively 3 or even 4 years of Island youth who will at the next election be entitled  to  participate  in  our  new  form  of  government  for  the  first  time.  This  must  surely  enhance  the understanding, if nothing else, of our system amongst our community. I do appreciate that depending upon the candidates and the issues at that time it may not necessarily have any effect on the overall percentage of people who vote but it might do a great deal to increase the numbers of people who at a younger age take up their right to choose to do so or not. After all, do not the numbers of none participating registered voters not in themselves tell us something of value? It could be argued that a poor turn out implies dissatisfaction within the electorate, or it could identify changes and problems that need to be made or corrected with our system of government. Increasing the potential catchments age effectively of such a large number of young people in our political process can in my view only be beneficial in the long term, whilst in the short term it will pose us with a few healthy challenges.

This change will result in a great deal of discussion and reflection, not only amongst the youth and the educators but also amongst parents. This will help the community as a whole to better understand Jersey's political structure and its various roles. The peer pressure effect will also do much to challenge the understanding of parents in relation to our Island government. There are many people in Jersey who through being of foreign origin or lack of education in politics whilst they were at school have no understanding or very little of our system of government. It is a strange and foreign system to many which has left them, in some cases, not knowing the difference between a Senator and a Centenier.

Education on politics in Jersey

I have discussed the current issue of education of politics in Jersey with the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture – Senator Mike Vibert – and he and his Department together with the teachers should be congratulated for their current initiatives. It is now practice in all primary schools in Jersey for the children to take part in elections for school councils. The Parochial system of Politics is also part of the curriculum and in the secondary schools there are also the well-known Youth Assemblies which take place in the States Chamber with some of our sitting States Members. Also I have been informed that visits to schools by politicians occur at present, to educate the secondary children on a first person basis. The Minister I am told has yet to consider the issue of the reduction in age comprehensively, but it is my hope that the youth of the Island and the parents that can vote at this time are shown how much of a progressive Minister he and indeed his Assistant Ministers Deputy  John Benjamin Foxand Deputy  Carolyn Fiona Labey are. The facts as stated in the Isle of Man debate are true for Jersey as they are relevant. When for example one can enlist in Her Majesty's Armed Forces at the age of 16 one must question the wisdom of any politician who would deny these servicemen and women the right to choose who governs them. To encourage a greater degree of involvement, pride and a real genuine sense of ownership in this Island we call home, there is no other legitimate stance to take in my view than to support the rights of 16 and 17 year olds to vote.

In Jersey in particular we have consistently demonstrated and evidenced that the young are up for the challenges and rights and responsibilities that voting bestows. Next year will be the 10th Youth Assembly. We usually have between 50 and 60 young people and the 6 schools/colleges with a sixth-form are usually represented (Hautlieu, de la Salle, Beaulieu, JCG. Victoria College and Highlands).

I am convinced that the range of topics and issues demonstrates not only an understanding but an appetite for politics with even BBC Radio Jersey covering the event by broadcasting the event. A letter to members about it, last year's Order Paper and Minutes and Minutes from 2005 and 2004 details can be found in the Appendix.

Financial and manpower implications

I do not think the change would have any significant financial or manpower implications. More people would register to vote. The Statistics Unit might have an idea of how many people are estimated to become eligible at the next Senatorial Elections to vote but I hesitate to ask them until the issue has surfaced at least. They would presumably in any event be living for the most part in households where there are already other voters so it would just be a case of adding another name to the registration form. The Parishes would have to enter a few more names onto the electoral roll but I can't see there would be any real additional financial or manpower implications and if there were they would be for the parishes not the States. I hope that the Connétable s embrace the opportunity of increasing the amount of people who are eligible to participate in elections in Jersey and will seek funds as required by the method they choose appropriate in this regard.

APPENDIX

POWER TO THE PEOPLE CONFERENCE

Saturday 6th May 2006

Speech by David Cameron, M.P., Leader of the Conservative Party

Cameron: It's time to share power with the people

"I've enjoyed reading the report.

I've been heartened by how much of it I agree with.

And, even where I don't, there's a definite sense of wanting to achieve the same objectives by slightly different routes.

What I'd like to do today is to set out what I think the problems are with the current system.

I want to shoot down some of the myths that could lead us down blind alleys.

And, then, I'll start to set out some of the things that would improve the way we do politics in this country.

Everyone in this hall knows that public faith in our political institutions is draining away and being replaced by a progressive and debilitating alienation.

I wish I could say that this is also a universally accepted truth among politicians. But, incredibly, there are still some people in Parliament who don't really get it.

Of course, they accept that things aren't great but there's also a sense that it's just a passing phase or a product of public annoyance with a particular government.

That's part of the Westminster disease.

You'd be amazed at the complacency that pervades the corridors of power.

Put simply, despite paying lip service to the need to re-engage the public, the political class is in denial.

I believe it's time to wake up.

According to MORI, the proportion of people trusting politicians to put the needs of the country before the needs of party halved between 1974 and 1999.

Trust in Parliament fell from 54% in 1983 to 14% in 2000.

Trust in the Civil Service has fallen from 46% to 17%.

Voting is the driving force of our parliamentary democracy.

Yet fewer and fewer people bother to vote

and even when they do, they think it hardly makes any difference.

To the public, Politicians all seem the same.

They break their promises.

And in any case, important decisions are often made somewhere else by someone else.

Fundamentally, at both a national and local level, people feel that they have little or no control over the decisions that affect their lives.

That is an indictment of a country that likes to consider itself a beacon of democracy. No wonder electoral turnout is down and support for fringe parties is up.

There are several bogus arguments put forward to explain why people are disengaged from politics.

One is that what we're facing is, in fact, a tide of apathy.

That somehow people are either too busy at work or too consumed by celebrity trivia to engage with civil society.

Helena Kennedy has skewered this lie masterfully. She says:

"People in Britain still volunteer; they run in marathons for charity; they hold car boot sales to raise funds for good causes; they take part in Red Nose days and wear ribbons for breast cancer or AIDS. They sit as school governors, do prison visiting, read with children who have learning difficulties. They take part in school races and run the school disco. They march against the Iraq war and in favour of the countryside. They sign petitions for extra street lights and more frequent bin collection. They send their savings to the victims of tsunamis and want to end world poverty."

Does that sound like apathy? No.

Another idea I don't buy is that politicians are too similar to each other. That public doesn't have a real choice.

I don't accept that a large gulf between parties is a reliable indicator of political health.

I'm glad that the era of cold war confrontation and stark ideological differences is behind us.

Consensus can be a good thing.

It doesn't have to be a problem as long as - and these are important caveats - genuine differences are not concealed and people have other mechanisms for making choices.

Along with bogus analyses come bogus solutions

One of the worst of these, recently outlined in an IPPR pamphlet, is the idea of compulsory voting.

This presupposes that it's fecklessness or lack of public spirit that keeps people away

from the polling station.

It isn't.

It's the sense of powerlessness.

Voting is a right.

And not voting should never be a crime. The state is our servant, not our master.

Compulsory voting - like compulsory ID cards - starts to reverse that relationship.

Trying to introduce compulsory voting in 21st century Britain would be like blackmailing people into attending your birthday party and then believing you were popular because so many people turned up!

One superficial idea for winning people back to politics is to change the trappings of Parliament.

But if the substance is wrong then making something more user-friendly is a waste of time.

Changing the ways that we refer to visitors to the House of Commons - not calling visitors strangers won't make a real difference.

So don't let the real reactionaries off the hook by being drawn into an irrelevant discussion about wigs and ceremonies and forms of address.

Having told you how not to re-engage the public in the political process it's now incumbent upon me to suggest how we can do it.

I've set up a Democracy Task force to examine ways of improving the system and that includes looking at the proposals put forward by the Power Inquiry.

For all of us, this is a work in progress.

I believe that there are two main components to the reform agenda.

The first is institutional.

It's about the changes we need to make to our institutions.

And the second, harder to describe but perhaps even more profound, is behavioural. When in comes to our institutions I think the report puts it very well:

"There needs to be a re-balancing of power between the constituent elements of the political system: a shift of power away from the Executive to Parliament and from central to local government "

I agree with both of these.

Let me take each in turn.

I want to put Parliament at the centre of national life

There's a sense that power has slipped away elsewhere.

To Quangos and bureaucrats.

To Judges.

To Europe.

Anyone, in fact, other than the politicians who people can elect and hold accountable. In future speeches I will address the issue of Europe.

Today I want to address the shift away from the legislature to the executive.

In the House of Commons we need to rebalance the power between whips and backbenchers.

More issues could be dealt with by free votes.

And standing committees should become both more powerful and more independent.

We send legislation off to be considered line by line by MPs, but give them no freedom to do so.

When it comes to law making, it's a case of too much, too quickly and with too little scrutiny.

The timetabling of bills is -quite simply - a disgrace. Whole sections of new legislation are never even debated.

If people knew just how bad the situation is they'd be even more disillusioned with our democracy than they are already.

We must remove the power of the executive to ride roughshod over the legislature.

I believe the time has come to look at those powers exercised by Ministers under the Royal Prerogative.

In a number of important areas - going to war, agreeing international treaties there's no formal mechanism for consulting the nation's elected representatives.

In other areas - like making senior appointments and re-organising government departments

the Prime Minister is able to do what he wants without consulting Parliament at all.

Yesterday we learnt that someone is apparently able to be given a position without having a job at all.

That has to change.

Another element of Parliament that's long overdue for reform is the House of Lords. A strong and effective Parliament needs a strong and effective second chamber.

The current House of Lords does some things really well.

It's good at scrutiny and revision - and asking the Government to think again.

But it lacks authority and legitimacy.

In my view the Lords must have a significant elected element if it is to play a full and proper role.

The term sleaze has now become a byword for the failings of the political class.

It's ridiculous that the final, indeed often the only, arbiter of ministerial probity is the Prime Minister.

That system of self-regulation inspires little confidence.

The only way we can start to repair the damage done to the reputation of politics is to insist on genuinely independent scrutiny from top to bottom. And that must include the Ministerial code.

The second part of institutional rebalancing is to shift power from a national to a local level.

I'm talking about a system of local democracy with real muscle.

A healthy, functioning society cannot be run from Westminster and Whitehall alone. Decisions about local matters should, wherever possible, be taken locally.

And the quality of these decisions should be judged by local voters.

We should trust the people on the ground.

They understand better than any remote bureaucrat what's right for their area.

Local people are far more likely to know what's right for their area than control freaks sitting in Whitehall.

We need a bonfire of the directives, audit systems, best value regimes, ring fencing and all of the stark paraphernalia of the Whitehall-control-freak regime that tells Local Authorities what they can and can't do.

I'm determined to reclaim the proud tradition within the Conservative Party of local rule and civic pride that stretches back to Chamberlain.

Tony Blair has encouraged limited experiments in local democracy such as directly- elected mayors.

I support that and I intend to encourage much more of it.

But the Government's credibility on this has been damaged by its relentless regionalisation.

These regional assemblies must go and the powers passed to regions must be returned to empowered local authorities.

Power should be exercised by local communities, not regional bureaucracies. And it's not just about local authorities.

I want to see new avenues of democracy.

For example in the area of policing.

The public has very little real say over how policing is conducted.

Police Authorities are relatively powerless, and they're virtually invisible to the public. I think the time has come for directly elected police commissioners.

Instead of police chiefs answering to central government, they would be formally accountable to local communities.

One of the few proposals in the Power Inquiry report I don't agree with is the idea of moving to a system of PR.

And I say that as the leader of a party that would be a major beneficiary of such a change.

One of the reasons I'm in favour of first-past-the-post is because the link between an MP and his or her constituency is a vital one.

It's human, transparent and unambiguous.

It's one of the few aspects of the current set up that really does work in practice as well as in theory.

If politicians generally were as respected as many MPs are personally in their own constituencies we wouldn't have such a big problem.

Anything that undermines, compromises or dilutes it doesn't serve our broader objectives.

But I do recognise that there are problems with first-past-the-post.

In safe seats many people fear they do not have enough real choice about who represents them.

There's one way that parties that have big majorities in certain constituencies can remedy that deficiency.

By opening up their Parliamentary selections to participation from a much broader cross- section of the community.

That's something that we in the Conservative Party are experimenting with.

We're going to use primaries to choose more of our publicly elected officials. We want to encourage many more voters to get involved at a much earlier stage. Not only will that make the process more open and transparent.

I'm also convinced it will help ensure that people of a high calibre come forward. For example, the Tory candidate for mayor of London will be chosen this way. We have to move away from political parties acting like closed cliques.

We also need to change the way we do politics in another respect.

Let's be honest.

Politicians' behaviour is a major factor in increasing the public's sense of alienation and cynicism.

Vigorous debate is important

And Parliament can still do that amazingly well.

Some of the speeches in the run up to the Iraq war were brilliant and heartfelt.

And the discussion on faith schools was a first class examination of the arguments for and against.

But, often, the public sees MPs at their worst. Point scoring.

Shouting.

Demanding resignations at a drop of a hat.

It means that when there's a real scandal, such as the one we've seen in recent days, it becomes harder to tell it apart from the more manufactured rows.

So when it comes to both organisation and behaviour politicians, as individuals, have to work hard to make politics more accessible to the public.

That's why, over the next few weeks and months, I'm going to try something different.

Instead of trotting out easy answers to familiar political problems, grouped together in their neat departmental boxes

NHS

Education

Social Security

I'll be making a series of speeches about the things that truly and profoundly affect

people's well-being:

Working life

Family life

Community life

That is how people experience life, not in neat Whitehall based boxes. And I want to be straight with people.

I'll try to explain how important it is that we politicians, while not being limited in our aspirations for government

should recognise the limitations of government in addressing these deeper questions.

Politicians shouldn't pretend to be able to fix every problem by taking more and more power from citizens.

I believe that trusting people and sharing responsibility is the right way forward.

It's the best way to respond to the challenges facing us at work, in our families and in our communities, in the decades ahead.

Our vision of an empowering state, rather than the current reality of an overpowering state, offers the path to the good life that everybody seeks.

My politics is about empowering people.

Not in a vague sense of making them feel better. I'm talking about something much more specific.

The right to make decisions about the things that affect their lives.

Society is infinitely more complex than it was a century ago.

The answer is not to attempt to control almost everything from the centre or through regional proxies.

That's an analogue solution to the problems of a digital age. And it's doomed to failure.

I want to quote from Power to the People.

In the section entitled New Citizens.

"British society which is now better educated, more afluent, expects greater control and choice over many aspects of life, feels no deference towards those in positions of authority, and is not as bound by the traditional bonds of place, class and institution that developed during the industrial era."

Absolutely right - but there's a problem.

Voters are more sophisticated than ever before

But the political system still takes them for fools.

Politicians offer us too many grand promises about matters that are not fully under their control.

Making people healthier

Improving behaviour in schools.

At the same time they often dodge the big decisions on things they do control. Reforming the pensions system

Planning our future energy provision.

I am determined to address these twin failures.

When it comes to these things that politicians pretend they can fix on their own - school standard, safe streets, a healthy nation - we must explain our shared responsibility.

On school standards for example - yes we can put money in, reform the exam system and empower teachers - but Parents must take their responsibility to get their children to behave, including get their children to school on time, properly fed.

Saying this doesn't mean I want a nanny state.

It's about shared responsibility and it's about telling the truth.

And when it comes to the big decisions we should make - pensions, energy, the nuclear deterrent - we must do the hard long-term work and then make absolutely clear where we stand.

That's what my policy reviews are about.

They are to help prepare us for the big decisions that we must make and then be frank about those decisions.

In the 21st century, citizens, equipped with degrees and broadband connections, are the equals of those who aspire to rule them.

It's time for government to stop trying to shut the public out of decision-making? I want to open the gates and let the people into the citadels of power.

I want to deregulate our system of government, as previous governments deregulated the economy.

My message to the political class is clear.

Stop trying to pretend we can do it all ourselves. It's time to share power with the people."

Delivering Power to the People'

SPEECH AT THE POWER COMMISSION CONFERENCE

by Sir Menzies Campbell, M.P., Leader of the Liberal Democrats

May 6, 2006

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

The report of the Power Commission should worry every elected representative in Britain.

Because in their report the Commission says, "We were struck by just how wide and deep is the contempt felt for formal politics in Britain."

Well, that doesn't make me feel too good, nor should it.

I can draw some small comfort from the fact that I agree with many of the sentiments and recommendations in the report.

The report describes a dysfunctional system in which disengagement has reached crisis levels. Look at the figures:

In  recent  elections,  one  third  of  the  electorate  do  not  feel  represented  by  any  of  the  political  parties  at Westminster.

Less than one-in-five votes have had any impact on the outcome in 2001 and 2005.

Despite a huge effort to extend postal voting, in the 2005 election, 39% of registered voters did not vote at all. And this at a time when voter registration is at an all time low.

It is clearly a long term problem, increasingly evident since the 1960s, and one that affects not just Britain but other developed countries.

Before assuming office, the present government recognised many of the systemic failures of our democracy and committed  themselves  to  solutions  in  the  form  of  the  1997  Labour  manifesto,  Charter  88,  and  the  Cook- Maclennan agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats on constitutional and electoral reform.

They have implemented some of what they promised – a devolved administration for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and some reform of the House of Commons, under Robin Cook.

But the roadblocks to a revival of democratic participation remain – electoral reform, reform of the House of Lords and the renaissance of local government.

These tasks were urgent in 1997. Failure to accord them the appropriate urgency once more will invite a crisis in the legitimacy and credibility of our institutions themselves.

As the Power Commission makes plain, the British political system has remained more or less unchanged since the Second World War.

It is a nineteenth century system that ill serves our 21st century society.

21st century Britain is place of educated, intelligent and engaged citizens who want to know how they are

governed and who want to play a part.

If we are serious about fundamental constitutional and democratic reform then we must begin with the question of empowering people as citizens, not as subjects.

As the Power Commission report makes clear, the age of deference is over.'

The disengagement we have all witnessed in recent general elections and, more starkly, on Thursday, urgently calls for a new approach, a renewal of our democracy.

An underlying theme of the Power report was that people felt they were not trusted.

Not trusted to make decisions. Not trusted with the whole truth of government information. Patronised by a trivial media and treated more like consumers than citizens.

We need to trust the people of Britain more.

We need to give power back to the people.

We need to ensure that government has the support of the majority. We need to plug the gap in accountability.

Apart from the institutions themselves, the style of governance has been distorted under New Labour.

The Power Commission calls the power grab by New Labour quiet authoritarianism', others have called it creeping authoritarianism'.

But the truth is that it was almost inevitable.

Without a written constitution, the institutions and the conventions of government are open to manipulation and even to being ignored by governments with large majorities.

We live in an elective dictatorship.

Parliament has become increasingly marginalised and ignored.

Ministers and Prime Minister are immune to the House of Commons.

One hundred and forty Labour MPs are in government as Ministers or PPSs; over a third of the ruling party. Parliament is managed and not engaged.

An electoral system which sustained a two-party dichotomy is inadequate to represent the diverse politics of the 21st century.

At the next general election, a majority in the Commons could be achieved by a party without the largest number of votes, as happened in February 1974.

Turnout, already historically low, could be even lower.

Why do we even contemplate such possibilities.

People feel powerless, they feel they have no influence over those that govern them and the decisions that affect

them.

It is not only politicians who have failed but politics itself.

As the Power Report says,

"Politics has failed to bring about fundamental improvements in the lives of the disadvantaged." This raises the question: what is politics for?

Democracy is about giving everyone an equal say in how our collective interests are addressed and how our collective resources are spent.

Democratic power is even more unevenly distributed in the U.K. than income.

The recent report of the New Economics Foundation which assesses this problem in terms of an Index of Democratic Power' (IDP), concluded that less than 3% of U.K. voters have anything like a fair share of power.

Against this backdrop the mantra of choice' in the public services, which would treat people as consumers not citizens, appears irrelevant.

64% of voters did not want this government at all.

They did not choose' this government.

If we are serious about choice, choice must start at the ballot box.

There is a real prospect that at the next general election the abstainers will be in the majority. The task of renewal is urgent.

The Commission's report found that there was, "an overwhelming desire for change among the British people, but that, as yet, no clear agenda for what such a change might look like."

It appears to me that the agenda for change is now clear, in the shape of the Commission's recommendations. I support them and I urge my fellow party leaders to do the same.

Let me address each of the issues identified by Power in turn.

It is comforting to hear others outside the Westminster village speaking about the need to restrain the power of the Executive.

All of the Commission's recommendations on rebalancing power between the executive and legislative branches and between national and local government are sound.

But, in some areas the detail is thin.

The concordat is an innovative and adaptable idea to set out the competences of the different branches of government, but only as a first step to a written constitution.

Flexibility, in the hands of authoritarian governments in the future, could be readily abused. Any constitutional settlement will require interpretation.

A job for the new Supreme Court?

Consideration of constitutional reform should include a rigorous examination of the Royal Prerogative and its unfettered use by subsequent governments.

Since before the Iraq war I have been arguing for a war powers act to require parliamentary approval for a declaration of war.

But there are other areas where the prerogative's undemocratic reach should be curtailed: such as Treaty making.

The motion for the Second Chamber of Parliament Bill which I co-sponsored in the House of Commons is an embodiment of the reforms recommended by Power for the Lords and it is the future shape of the Lords that I would like to see.

But in the light of recent events it is impossible to consider the reform of the House of Lords independently of the issue of party finance.

The honours system and the second chamber of parliament must be disentangled.

It may well be appropriate for Honours to be in the gift of the Prime Minister subject to independent audit, but appointment to the second chamber should certainly not be.

It is perhaps worth reminding the Prime Minister that in his book NEW BRITAIN – My Vision of a Young Country', published just before his 1997 election victory, Mr. Blair pledged:

" a n end to hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords as the first step to a properly directly elected second chamber, and the chance for the people to decide after the election the system by which they elect the government of the future".

It is perverse that in evidence given to the Hansard Society individual "Constituency MPs" (of all parties) are held in relatively high regard.

They are seen to be hard-working, conscientious and people of real integrity.

And yet the Commons – the collective of all those admired individuals – is seen as under the thumb of the Prime Minister or the Party Whips and incapable of its task of holding the Government to account.

The cause of this is the widespread, and accurate, perception that the institution no longer reflects the nation. This is hardly surprising since the present government has the support of only 21.6% of those registered to vote.

An unresponsive electoral system is at the centre of this crisis of representation and the so-called democratic deficit' in Britain.

Reviving democratic participation in Britain is essential if the institutions are to maintain legitimacy, but also, if politics is to work as it should.

The argument about the Single Transferable Vote, Alternative Vote or any other voting system is not about whether it favours one party or another.

In a liberal society it can only be about how it delivers the wishes and preferences of the whole of society, particularly the disadvantaged and marginalised, into government.

Effective representation is the only way to reconnect our government with the citizens of Britain.

To improve responsiveness further and heighten accountability we need to sever other links in the political ecosystem.

And in particular, central party control over fundraising.

If parties are limited in the amount they can raise, as suggested in the Power report, they will seek to find money in other ways.