I think there are great advantages in setting it at 16, but I really found the connection to women suffrage strained and unhelpful, because we're talking about a really important principle here, and I think 16 to 18-year-olds would allow us to focus on a lot of education issues, a lot of care issues—looked-after children, for instance—and many parts of the political debate—future generations, for instance—and the way infrastructure is developed, and that, I think, is really, really important. The arguments for 16 and 17-year-olds voting I think are strong enough without reducing other Members who are advancing their views with coherency, even if I don't agree with them. Certainly, people under 16 do pay tax; value added tax is a very substantial part of our tax revenue, and it has to be paid on those purchases that attract it, whatever your age. 

I have three amendments in this group, Deputy Llywydd, namely amendments 3, 4 and 43. Amendment 3 and, consequentially, amendment 43, would insert on the face of the Bill a duty for the Welsh Government to issue statutory guidance to all secondary schools, including colleges, on how to educate and inform on the changes to the voting age. This was extensively talked about at Stages 1 and 2, but I'm still unsatisfied with the Welsh Government's response, which is basically, 'This sort of thing will happen anyway because they do political education so well'. I couldn't put the argument any better than my colleague Andrew R.T. Davies did at Stage 2—that if you do support the changes to the franchise, you should also vote for this amendment and ensure that the curriculum will inform and prepare our young citizens to exercise their democratic right then established. It would not be healthy for our democracy if this substantial change is implemented without such educational support, because nearly this entire age group will be in an educational setting.

If I may quote Jess Blair, who said at Stage 1,

'At the moment, I think political education is relatively poor and, as a general population, I think we're relatively disengaged in devolved politics, in particular. So, political education, for me, and the extension of the franchise, is an opportunity to do things differently, and it's an opportunity to ensure that this generation of young people...will be much more informed than the current population.'

And I have to say, I think that's very wise advice. We are facing a crisis of citizenship, and at least we can prepare our new citizens with full knowledge of the sort of world that they'll inherit if active citizenship is not taken seriously.

So, I do think that this momentous change, which I welcome, should attract this duty on the Government in terms of what they do in setting statutory guidance for the curriculum. And I must say, the diversity of settings that my amendment would cover means that those in education and training would also—outside the school setting, inevitably—be supported in this way, and encouraged to exercise their democratic rights. And we can go beyond, with a more imaginative approach, simply outlining democratic structures and formal process in the education, and actually engage and inform young people about the issues that really matter to them. We can ensure that young people have opportunities to learn about a full range of political opinions in a non-partisan way. Furthermore, we can also ensure, by doing this, that this political education is delivered by teachers and educators who have themselves received high-quality training in order to ensure that citizenship education is taken seriously, and avoids both political bias and the perception of political bias.

If I can turn to my other amendments, these I introduced for the first time at this stage, and I think the only other amendment that's introduced for the first time is amendment 4. The reason I'm doing this is that if we do create this duty, then I think it's appropriate that we also have the ability to include it in post-legislative scrutiny. So, that's what my second amendment would do. The one area of post-legislative scrutiny that now the Counsel General proposes in his amendment 164, which I do welcome—I think it's a great improvement to the Bill to have brought that amendment on post-legislative scrutiny—doesn't actually cover this point of education because, obviously, at the minute, alas, you don't believe in the duty, unless I've just managed to persuade you. Therefore, it would cover that gap should the Assembly create this duty.

I do think, if I can just say, in general, Dirprwy Lywydd, that post-legislative scrutiny, I think, should attach to all significant Bills and certainly to constitutional ones. I don't think we lose anything when we revisit legislation and examine how it has actually been put into operation and what some of the practical effects that may not have been anticipated were, and, particularly when we're dealing with constitutional issues, I think there is a real need to do that. To practise what I preach, if we do create this duty, then, I think that should be fully covered in post-legislative scrutiny also, and I urge Members to support my amendments.