Ninety years ago today, Parliament passed an Act that brought our nation into a modern and meaningful world and made a significant and meaningful change to the way in which our society operates. The Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 granted votes to all women over the age of 21. This Act was formed ten years after the original piece of legislation in 1918 that gave votes to some women over 30 and all men over 21. Whilst these changes did not resolve all matters they are worth celebrating in a significant manner. One of the ways in which the celebration has been marked over the last couple of weeks has been a series of events called EqualiTeas. One of the reasons for this was that historically tea parties in the 20th Century were seen to be hotbeds of political activism. It was one of the few ways women could meet without men present to discuss and plan their campaigns. Some of the suffrage organisations used tea parties and tea shops as central elements in their campaigning, to increase awareness, discuss tactics and raise funds. The need for men and women to be treated equally, irrespective of their wealth or possessions in our democracy is vital. In the same way there is a vital need for equality in workplaces and a challenge for certain industries such as engineering to appeal to more women and those such as early years education to appeal to more men. One of the reasons why votes for all men and all women was so important was that it changed the emphasis within the Parliamentary system for MPs to start to listen to and engage with all people over 21 in their constituencies.

One of the fascinating aspects of this 90^th anniversary has been the various broadcasts on the debates and discussions that took place at the time, both publicly and behind closed doors such as in the tea rooms. One of the arguments that was made by some of those opposed to the idea of universal and equal suffrage was that women under 30 who did not own property lacked the understanding and knowledge to make the right decision over politics. This sounds very similar to some of the views currently being expressed by those who are opposed to extending the voting age to 16 or 17 year olds. Few people today would argue that men or women are better placed than the others to make sense of the world around us; by the same token only very naïve people would argue that being 17 or even 16 would prevent anyone from being able to understand the issues that determine how we should vote. It took from 1928 to 1969 for the Government to agree to reduce the voting age limit from 21 to 18, let us hope that that on the 26^th October that Peter Kyle’s Bill to reduce the voting age to 16 passes its second reading. To do so according to the deputy speaker, the Bill will need a 4-5 hour time slot so it is vital that the provision for this is made by Parliament. Those of us who get angry when a small group of MPs attempt to block private members bills will feel equally upset if this happens in the case of this Bill.

One of the reasons why I personally support the reduction of the voting age is that MPs will need to then start to refocus their actions and comments to a wider age range of people in society than they do currently. The focus on matters such as apprenticeships and education will then shift a bit more towards the needs of the people and the views of the educators and in due course will hopefully begin to influence the budget holders and policy makers. In the same way that offering votes to 16 and 17 year olds will help to focus MPs thinking in their direction, there is another group of people that is currently denied a vote and mostly get overlooked by law makers. My personal view is that denying people access or representation even when they have broken the law and are in prison means that the views and concerns of prisoners is something that many MPs choose to ignore. The need to ensure that all members of society are listened to and are given the opportunity to receive representation is clear to me. It is also clear from the way in which our society ignores many of the needs and concerns of people held in prisons, that the prospects of prisons carrying out an effective rehabilitation programme is lost whenever resources are needed to achieve this.