Guernsey has all sorts of different minimum ages at which it becomes legal to do stuff. Fourteenth, 16th, 17th, and 18th birthdays all open up the doors to certain activities. Only the traditional ‘coming of age’ at 21 no longer seems to have any legal significance – although I stand to be corrected on that.
When I was a deputy it was occasionally suggested to me that this bewildering range of minimum ages should be rationalised, and a single threshold introduced for everything. I could understand the attractiveness of the idea but when looked at more closely it didn’t really hold water.
Let’s take a look at a few of those minimum ages.
In Guernsey you need to be 14 to ride either a small motorbike or an e-bike. Frankly that age feels too young for the first activity, but too old for the second one.
What’s the history? I think the law that youngsters could ride a motorbike up to 100cc (as it used to be) at 14 was introduced at a time when that was also the school-leaving age. But whether the two were connected I am not completely sure.
I suppose in the early days of the law a machine under 100cc probably had a pretty low performance. A glorified Mobylette. But this was still the law when I was a teenager in the early ‘70s, and by then Japanese manufacturers were producing 100cc machines which were very nippy indeed. Sadly it took several young deaths before the States decided to reduce the limit to 50cc as it is today.
I am not sure where, or how, the age of 14 was determined to be the correct minimum for riding an e-bike. Is it an international norm? Or is Guernsey just treating them the same as small motorbikes? If it is the latter it doesn’t seem very rational as they really are chalk and cheese.
The one obvious link between the two is that the existence of e-bikes surely makes the argument that 14 and 15-year-olds need to be able to ride motorbikes far weaker.
Perhaps it would be nice to see is a sort of ‘push-me pull-you’ of a policy letter from the Environment & Infrastructure Committee. One that proposes reducing the minimum age for e-bikes to 11, so that all secondary age kids could ride them, but increasing the age for motorbikes to 16.
Talking of 16, that is also the minimum age for lots of other things such as marriage, sexual consent and voting. But is it the right age in all cases?
At first blush, 16 seems like an absurdly young age to allow islanders to enter into such a life-defining contract as marriage. Even if they do require parental permission until they have reached 18. But I guess this too is an accident of history.
When this age was first set, the morals of society were rather different than today, and there was huge disapproval of any sexual congress outside of marriage. Certainly there was no way the States of the time was going to be seen as endorsing such goings-on.
Therefore it followed that the legal age for marriage could not be set any higher than that for giving consent. If it had then the government would have effectively been saying that it was acceptable to become sexual active at age x, but you couldn’t marry yet, thereby implying that sex outside marriage was acceptable.
So what about the rationale for setting the age of consent at 16? I bet some puritans would have liked to see it higher, but at the end of the day, wiser heads realised that nature is nature. Indeed a few miles away in France, the age of consent has been 15 for very many years. In the UK, and here in Guernsey, it was set at 16 largely because people realised that hormones tend to disregard legislation.
Of course that was only for heterosexual consent. When I was first in the States there was no age of consent at all for homosexual acts. They were strictly illegal and punishable by imprisonment – even if both parties were octogenarians. Then they were legalised for those over the age of 21 (except for those in the military or the merchant navy), then brought down to 18, and eventually equalised with the heterosexual age of consent at 16.
Why did it take so long to achieve equality? I really don’t know. I remember some deputies expressing concerns over predatory behaviour by older men towards young boys. I could certainly understand discomfort concerning sexual relationships between a 16 or 17-year-old and someone very much older. The bit I couldn’t really understand is why this was considered so much of a bigger problem in a homosexual context than in a heterosexual one.
Let’s move on to voting. The reduction in Guernsey’s voting age from 18 to 16 was quite recent, and I confess that I am quite torn over whether it was a wise move. There is no obvious age at which it is clearly right to allow people to vote. Many 16-year-olds will be too immature to form valid political opinions but others will be well able to do so. A bit like 25-year-olds, and 35-year-olds, really.
Then there is the ‘no taxation without representation’ argument. I am no tax expert but my understanding is that if a 16 or 17-year-old leaves school and starts work they are liable to pay income tax.
At the time, the hope was expressed that lowering the voting age would increase political engagement by the island’s youth. I don’t think that has really happened, but I am sure that those who are interested in public affairs appreciate the ability to take part in the democratic process. Meanwhile the rest are probably enjoying having a life.
Torn though I am, I certainly don’t think the change did any harm. Either way it is a genie which is unlikely to go back into the democratic bottle.
Next we have the minimum age for driving cars. It is 17. I have no idea what the original rationale was for setting it at this age, but I am not aware of it creating any controversy or strong feelings. I have heard a few people opining that it could go up to 18 but personally I can’t really see the advantage of that.
Talking of 18, that is the official age of adulthood. So it brings with it all sorts of boring legal rights – like entering into binding contracts. But, our culture being what it is, probably the major perceived change created by reaching this milestone is being able to buy alcohol.
Eighteen has long been the minimum age for this Guernsey, but over the water in Sark, until not that long ago, youngsters could drink beer and/or cider at 16. I quite liked this quirk – particularly when I was 16 and 17 – but sadly it was closed down due to abuse. I think the Sark constables just got fed up with parties of Guernsey teenagers coming across on day trips but with zero interest in walking the Hog’s Back or swimming in the Venus Pool.
Finally let’s look at smoking. Until not that long ago you could buy tobacco at 16. Now it is 18, but many campaigners feel that age should be increased further.
That would be an interesting idea. It would probably make it the only area where adults were restricted from doing something because they were deemed too young. On the other hand very few people take up this dreadfully unhealthy practice beyond their early 20s, so I can certainly see the public health argument for increasing the age.
If this happened it might have to be a gradual process to avoid criminalising those already addicted to tobacco. That said I don’t remember that being a consideration when the age went from 16 to 18.
Should it happen? Should no one be allowed to buy tobacco products below, say, 21? I think the idea has merit but I suppose I would be more convinced if the evidence showed that the current law was preventing those under 18 from smoking.
So as we have seen there certainly are a bewildering range of minimum ages governing different activities in Guernsey. And I bet I have forgotten to mention several of them. But could they be unified? Of course not. The idea that the ages for, say, marriage and riding an e-bike should be the same is patently absurd.
